Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Fly-tipping

Julian Lewis: What assessment she has made of the impact of fly-tipping on (a) local authorities and (b) businesses.

Alun Michael: The Environment Agency estimates that fly-tipping costs public authorities and landowners between £100 million and £150 million a year.

Julian Lewis: The shadow Secretary of State said that a Conservative Government would make fly-tipping an arrestable offence. Will the Government do likewise, or are they once again all talk and no action?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should apply that description to his party, given the sound and fury that we hear from it, with little positive to note. The Government have acted to strengthen the powers available to local authorities, including, under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the ability to stop, search and seize vehicles suspected of fly-tipping. That enables action to be taken on the spot. We are also taking steps to increase the penalties. It is easy for Opposition Members to come up with absurd suggestions when they know that they will not be in power for many years to come.

David Drew: As much as action depends on the ability of local authorities and business to respond, the key influence on them will be the consumer or, more specifically, people living in the local area, and I commend Mrs. Elizabeth Hall of Harescombe in my constituency, who has led a community action against fly-tippers. Can we be assured that when the community gets together and makes its points, all the agencies will respond to it, especially the Environment Agency, which has promised to deliver but has yet to do so?

Alun Michael: We have put in place the Flycatcher scheme, which provides information. In the coming months, we will provide for the first time a national picture of the extent of the problem.
	My hon. Friend is right that information enabling the authorities to catch those who are guilty of fly-tipping, especially those who do it repeatedly and who make a profit out of it by not properly disposing of the by-product of their business, is one step that needs to be taken. The measures that we have put in place in antisocial behaviour legislation enable action to be taken. If individuals are caught fly-tipping, exchanging information and using our system to ensure that we catch those who are doing it persistently, while ensuring that fines are applied to them and that they are imprisoned if appropriate, is the way forward.

Peter Luff: The Minister may know from letters that I have written to his Department that I have a particularly sharp fly-tipping problem in the Bredicot and Spetchley areas of my constituency on the edge of Worcester city. Will he use any opportunity he has to remind rural police forces of the need to give a priority to such a situation, and also, within the proper limits of his powers, to encourage magistrates and others to hand down draconian sentences as part of the considerable powers that they have available?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the powers available to magistrates, and we encourage them to take environmental offences seriously. Much work is being done with the Magistrates Association to increase awareness of the impact of environmental offences on local communities.
	As for police priorities, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, like many others, has a number of things that he wants regarded as priorities. We are trying to improve the way in which the Environment Agency, local authorities and others work together to tackle such offences.

Joan Walley: Will my right hon. Friend send out a strong message to North Staffordshire that we will not tolerate fly-tipping? Will he hold talks with the Environment Agency to see whether we could be a pilot area for a targeted carrot-and-stick approach that improves public awareness of whether we are dealing properly with waste while making it clear to those who do not do so that we will come down on them like a ton of bricks? [Laughter.]

Alun Michael: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Unlike Opposition Members, who are all noise and sound and fury, we are tackling the problems, and we want them tackled in every area. If she has suggestions about extra activities that could be piloted, I would be interested to hear from her and her councillors about ideas that would help to enhance even further the steps that the Government are taking.

Waste Management

Andrew MacKay: If she will make a statement on the Government's waste management policy.

Elliot Morley: The Government's strategy on waste is set out in "Waste Strategy 2000", published in May 2000. The Government outlined further plans in May 2003 in response to the Prime Minister's strategy unit report, "Waste not, want not". The Government are committed to reviewing their strategy on waste in 2005.

Andrew MacKay: Is not the simple truth that the Government have signed up to a number of EU directives with great gusto, which means that there are 4 million tonnes of hazardous waste in the United Kingdom with nowhere to go? Is that not a disgrace?

Elliot Morley: If it were true, it would be, but of course it is not. The Government are committed to moving to a sustainable method of waste disposal and treatment. That entails minimising the amount of waste going into landfill, which is not sustainable in the long term. There is enough capacity to deal with hazardous waste in this country, and I am glad to say that the latest figures show that the amount going into landfill has declined appreciably.

Julia Drown: I and many on Swindon borough council are keen to help achieve the Government's recycling targets. In terms of pounds per tonne recycled, the council does very well, but a number of its bids to increase waste recycling still further have been refused by the Government. Will my hon. Friend have a word with his officials to see whether they could discuss with the council what more could be done to recycle more in Swindon, which might involve more Government support for projects?

Elliot Morley: The Government have made more than £100 million available to local councils in the past year to encourage the introduction of more recycling facilities. The Government are always willing to talk to local authorities that have not been successful in a particular bid. The amount of money made available through the environment and cultural services block for waste treatment and disposal has been increased for all local authorities, but we are willing to give individual feedback to assist local authorities with future bids.

Anne McIntosh: I pay tribute to the Minister's knowledge and experience, but he has failed in his first duty, which is to be prepared. He has had years of warning that, under the new EU landfill directive, co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste is no longer possible. It is absolutely true that there are 4 million tonnes of hazardous waste this year with nowhere to go. What message does that give industry and the waste management industry, which have not been given sufficient time to prepare?

Elliot Morley: I am sorry that the Opposition seem to have convinced themselves that there is some kind of hazardous waste mountain. There is not. There are not 4 million tonnes of hazardous waste with nowhere to go. The great predicted crisis has not happened. The facilities are adequate. The bulk of hazardous waste—about 60 per cent.—is contaminated soil. There is much more treatment on site now, which is what we wanted to encourage. The hon. Lady should be congratulating the Government on reducing the amount of hazardous waste going into landfill and increasing the amount that is remediated, treated and reduced in a much more sustainable way.

Andrew Bennett: Can my hon. Friend explain the logic of the Government signing up to EU directives on the end use of motor cars and other electrical goods, yet not requiring drinks manufacturers to take back their cans and bottles?

Elliot Morley: There has been a big increase in the number of cans and bottles being recycled. The recycled material from cans, particularly aluminium cans, fetches extremely good prices at present. We want to see more of that. Producer obligations do apply to packaging, but the bulk of bottles and cans are bought by consumers through retail outlets, so we have to consider ways of encouraging recycling through domestic waste. I am glad to say that the recycling rate nationally has increased from 6 per cent. in 1997 to an estimated 18 per cent. currently.

Norman Baker: Is it not a disgrace that, in round figures, we recycle 0 per cent. of household batteries, whereas the EU directive will require us to recycle 44 per cent., and the only site in the country for recycling such batteries, which is in Bristol, is being decommissioned? What is the Government's strategy for ensuring that we meet the EU target of 44 per cent., or will we have a battery mountain, along with the fridge mountain and the car mountain?

Elliot Morley: With respect, the Liberal Democrats are working hard on some kind of mountain. The battery mountain is a smallish one. In relation to the overall waste streams, it is a very small part. That is not to say that it is not important. We want to see more recycling of batteries. Car batteries have a high recycling rate in this country, but for domestic batteries—small batteries—it is true that the figures are low. Facilities are being established in the UK. The hon. Gentleman will have seen recent parliamentary answers from me on the subject. We want to encourage a greater rate of household battery recycling, and we will do that as part of the increase in recycling that is taking place all over the country.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend rightly said that he wants to encourage recycling. Does he agree with the paper industry that the quality of recycling is important, particularly when it involves doorstep collection? We have seen increases in weight, but we want to see increases in quality so that the paper industry can use the product to benefit itself and UK plc.

Elliot Morley: I know that my hon. Friend has close connections with the paper industry and is a strong advocate for it. I am glad to say that 100 per cent. of all newsprint in this country is now recycled, which is a significant achievement. Local authorities are aware that quality is important in collecting paper for recycling, which has not always been the case, because paper has in the past been inadvertently contaminated. We have drawn the issue to the attention of local authorities, which can maximise the sum that they get for paper by maintaining quality.

Fallen Stock

Nick Harvey: What assessment she has made of the impact of the delay in the introduction of the national fallen stock collection scheme.

Ben Bradshaw: None. My officials and the board of the National Fallen Stock Company have concentrated their time and resources on getting the scheme right and getting it started. I am pleased to announce to the House today that the scheme will begin on 22 November.

Nick Harvey: I welcome that announcement and hope that the scheme will actually happen this time. The National Fallen Stock Company has given biosecurity advice to both collectors and farmers. What is the legal status of that advice to farmers, how will it be enforced and how will remote areas in which cover is inadequate be regulated?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman must wait for the announcement of the details of the fallen stock scheme before he gets a full answer, and I shall write to him about it. The rules must be enforced, because biosecurity is important and is high on the list of farmers' concerns. The National Fallen Stock Company is confident that the national network of collectors will cover even remote parts of the country, which should not pose too much of a biosecurity problem.

David Taylor: I congratulate the Minister on the time, effort and ingenuity that he and his officials have put into the scheme. Rather than listening to the continual carping from Opposition parties who claim to speak for farmers, let us listen to the National Farmers Union. Does the Minister agree with NFU vice-president, Meurig Raymond, who said:
	"There is a real opportunity to make this scheme work for farmers . . . The scheme should provide farmers with a cost effective mechanism for complying with EU regulations, which will form part of the . . . rules for the new single farm payment scheme starting next year"?

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is right. We sometimes lose sight of the fact that the Government are putting in £20 million of taxpayers' money to subsidise the scheme, which is supported by the NFU and run by the industry with an NFU representative as the chairman of the board.

Andrew George: Arrangements for fallen stock collection are, of course, part of the Government's efforts to deal with biosecurity. This morning, I saw a distressing video from Northumberland trading standards, filmed four days after the foot and mouth outbreak began in 2001, of Bobby Waugh's Burnside farm. Has the Minister seen that video—I know that his Department has it—and if so, does he agree that it provides ample justification for reopening Dr. Iain Anderson's inquiry into the causes and lessons of the foot and mouth outbreak?

Ben Bradshaw: I have not seen the video and do not agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. I understand that the video contains nothing new and have been told that all the details in it were given to the Anderson inquiry. Dr. Anderson himself has said that his decisions and recommendations would have been exactly the same, and the video formed part of Bobby Waugh's trial.

James Gray: Does the Minister recall Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 22 July, when he claimed that the NFU supported his view that hunt kennels play what he described as a "small role" in the collection of fallen stock? Has he seen this letter from the NFU, which states:
	"I was not entirely surprised to hear the minister's remarks yesterday as he has form on this! He misrepresented the views of Michael Seals, the chairman of the fallen stock collection scheme, on the same subject at Defra PQs on May 20.
	Let me assure you that at no point has the NFU said that the part played by the hunt kennels in stock disposal is 'small' or 'insignificant'. On the contrary . . . I suspect the politics of this is that as a fully paid-up hunt banner the minister does not want to be seen"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman sit down? Front Benchers are privileged and are sometimes called before Back Benchers; do not abuse the privilege. If the Minister can answer, fine; if not, we will move on.

Ben Bradshaw: I cannot comment on the letter, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. Gentleman did not have the courtesy to include it when he wrote to me about the issue.

Energy Crops

Alan Whitehead: What plans she has to support the development of energy crops.

Margaret Beckett: A new biomass study team will work with stakeholders to identify barriers to developing bioenergy and ways in which to overcome them. Other studies will consider economic issues and renewable heat. Aid is available to plant energy crops and to develop supply chains and end users for heat and power generation.

Alan Whitehead: I am encouraged by the progress that has been made on research and the beginning of funding for increased production of such crops.
	Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are multiple benefits to agriculture, industry and the environment in the effective deployment of energy crops in fuel and in biomass power generation? Does she recognise that there remains a considerable problem of "Who goes first?" between the development of biomass-based power stations and the obtaining of long-term secure energy crops to fuel them? Will her Department work closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to facilitate the resolution of that problem?

Margaret Beckett: I accept and understand what my hon. Friend says about the mixture of advantages and the concern that we are not yet getting the balance right. That is why we set up the taskforce, which should be able to identify the remaining barriers and give sound advice on how to remove them.

Michael Jack: The Secretary of State will be aware that sugar beet producers are worried about their future in the light of the proposed reforms to the EU sugar beet regime. One way of dealing with that would be to have a UK bioethanol industry. Will she therefore think about expanding the remit of the group that is considering biomass under the chairmanship of Sir Ben Gill to allow it to consider the barriers to a bioethanol and a biodiesel industry in this country? That is particularly relevant at a time when fuel security is uppermost in our minds.

Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I take entirely. There is widespread understanding of the potential benefits of bioethanol and biodiesel. His suggestion might overly widen the scope of the study headed by Sir Ben Gill; if so, I undertake to consider whether there are other ways in which we might pursue it.

David Kidney: My right hon. Friend's Department has generously grant-aided a consortium of farmers and other business people in Stafford to produce energy crops, such that by next year more than 1,000 hectares of land in Staffordshire will be planted with miscanthus. The technology to do the conversion is in place, as is the first end user, but the project is in doubt because of an inability to secure a contract for the supply of renewable energy for a length of time and at a price that will be guaranteed to make the contract viable. Does she agree that until this industry is well established there is a role for Government in helping to ensure a guaranteed minimum length of time and price for the renewable energy that is produced?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind support for what the Government are already doing. I certainly accept that from time to time there are steps that we can take. We continually look at ways in which we can overcome some of these problems. He will know that a variety of grants and scheme proposals are available to deal with problems to do with the supply chain and so on. I cannot undertake that the Government will step in to deal with every one of these issues, because we are all trying to stimulate an effective market for such produce. However, I undertake to continue to consider the points that my hon. Friend raises and to consider further what we can do to assist and support.

Michael Weir: As well as help with the production end of fuel, will the Secretary of State consider help at the other end? For example, wood could be an important biofuel, particularly in Scotland. Perth and Kinross council, which looked into including biofuel as an option in a new school project, found that the cost of such boilers is four times greater than that of other boilers. It would be a great help if grants were available to local authorities considering such projects to enable them to include biofuel as an option. Will she examine that with the devolved Administrations?

Margaret Beckett: Of course, we are always willing to consider ideas and proposals that emerge, particularly from hon. Members. Various grants and schemes are already available that may be able to assist the hon. Gentleman's local authority. Certainly, I undertake to consult the Scottish Executive about that in the way that he asks.

Bob Blizzard: On my right hon. Friend's visits to East Anglia, she will have noticed the vast fields of rapeseed there. Those fields could be the new environmentally friendly oilfields of the country if we could convert rapeseed oil into biodiesel. Despite the cut in duty by the Treasury, that is still not economically viable. Can she tell us where we need to go with this issue if we are not to waste this valuable sustainable resource, which has the potential to provide valuable income for farmers?

Margaret Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely, and I know, as he says, that the potential of UK-grown oilseed rape is being considered. He will know that the balance of duty is currently examined in terms of the environmental benefit that could be gained from such a duty cut. That relationship is established. I know that my Treasury colleagues are as ever willing to consider the issue, but they are anxious to ensure that we get the right outcome in terms of stimulating UK development rather than merely sucking in imports.

Tim Yeo: On that last point, while recognising that the current biofuel duty reductions are helpful, does the Secretary of State accept that if biofuels are to make a real contribution to cutting carbon dioxide emissions and be a significant alternative crop for farmers, further duty cuts are needed? If she has difficulty in persuading the Treasury about that, she might like to point out that this is one area in which lower duty is likely to lead to higher revenue.

Margaret Beckett: I am always grateful for suggestions as to how to put a better case to the Treasury. I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. We continue to keep under review what the level of duty currently is or should be. Of course, whether further duty cuts would assist is not the only issue—there are other options, such as capital grants, enhanced capital allowances and a biofuels obligation, and in the not-too-distant future, we will be required to set targets under the EU biofuels directive. However, I welcome the recognition on both sides of the House that this is an important area.

Waste Management

Angela Watkinson: How many landfill sites are licensed to accept hazardous waste.

Elliot Morley: Currently, 34 landfills in England and Wales are licensed to take hazardous waste. In addition, applications for 29 new facilities are under consideration.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the Minister for that response, but in his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) he protested that there is no hazardous waste mountain. When he considers that in every shed in every garden in the country, and in every cupboard under the stairs in every home in the country, there will be several tins of half-used household paint, which is now categorised as hazardous, is he not being a tad complacent?

Elliot Morley: Only if there were 4 million tonnes under somebody's stairs—I would be a bit worried about that; it would be a cause for concern. The fact is that paint has been classed as hazardous for some time—that is not particularly new. On my frequent travels round the country to landfill sites and rubbish tips, in which I take a great interest, I am pleased to see that most local authorities have provided good facilities for the safe disposal of items such as household paint.

Colin Pickthall: My hon. Friend will be aware of the recent Environment Agency report showing from research that within a radius of 2 km from a hazardous waste site, recorded birth defects are 7 per cent. higher than in the rest of the population. I have some personal interest in that question, as I live within 1 km of such a site. What is the Department doing to research that and to find out what the direct link is, and what joint work is being done by his Department and the Department of Health to ensure that people are protected?

Elliot Morley: That is an interesting point. I declare an interest, in that I, too, live within 1 km of a landfill site.
	The findings are well known. For the first time, the Government have pulled together all the known scientific studies of the health effects of all forms of waste disposal. As my hon. Friend says, one study reveals a higher incidence of birth defects around not just hazardous landfill sites but landfill sites in general. There is, however, no scientific evidence linking that directly with the sites; a number of other factors may be involved—socio-economic factors, for example.
	The study found that the overall risks of waste disposal were small in comparison with the everyday risks of life. All forms of waste disposal involve risk, and landfill, which is sometimes seen as a fairly benign form of disposal, nevertheless has risks associated with it.

Sue Doughty: I congratulate the Minister on the comfort zone that he has built around himself in stating that the arrangements are going well, but we hear from the waste industry that unusual things are happening. For instance, there seem to have been no changes in what happens to liquid hazardous waste. No one knows where it is going.
	People in the village of Jacob's Well in my constituency would very much like arrangements to deal with asbestos, which is an absolute plague.

Elliot Morley: Liquid hazardous waste generally, although not exclusively, goes to in-house disposal sites, which are still available and cater for a great deal of specialist hazardous waste.
	It is strange that, having been accused of responsibility for fridge mountains and the like in the past, the Government should now be accused because there is no hazardous waste mountain—as if I were hiding one in my garage at home. Although I would not dispute the fact that my garage contains all sorts of waste, I assure the House that it is not hazardous.
	The issues are being taken seriously. The Environment Agency has upped its enforcement and checks. Yesterday I received a letter from the agency saying that there has been no recorded increase in the dumping of hazardous waste. It does happen, however, and any dumping of such waste—which tends to consist of building materials and asbestos—is unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Government have taken firm measures to deal with the problem.

Sugar Regime

Paddy Tipping: When she last met European Union colleagues to discuss the sugar regime.

Margaret Beckett: At the Agriculture Council meeting on 19 July, Commissioner Fischler presented his latest communication setting out his preferred approach to reform of the EU sugar regime. EU Ministers will be resuming discussions at the November Agriculture Council meeting.

Paddy Tipping: In those discussions, will the Secretary of State argue strongly against equal quota cuts in all member states and in favour of taking out inefficient producers such as those in Greece and Finland, so that countries such as the United Kingdom, factories such as British Sugar's factory in Newark, and Nottinghamshire farmers can continue to prosper?

Margaret Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point, and assure him that in our discussions I will, as ever, endeavour to safeguard and protect the competitive position of British farmers. I know he will understand, though, when I say that using the arguments he suggests may not work entirely to our advantage, certainly during a transitional period. Although qualified majority voting will apply, any proposals must carry a majority in the Council. However, I accept his underlying point: the present sugar regime is enormously distorting, and cannot be sustained.

Alistair Burt: One of the main users of the British sugar industry is of course our food industry. It has received a significant boost over the past three years from the success of the British food fortnight, which is estimated to have earned an extra £10 million for the regional food and drink sector. Is the Secretary of State disturbed by reports that next year's event is threatened by a lack of Government funding? Will she investigate? Does she agree with the organiser, Alexia Robinson—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is far too wide of the question.

Lawrie Quinn: Given the importance of the production of sugar beet in North Yorkshire, which feeds the refinery in York, what hope can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents who are involved in sugar beet production in regard to their options for diversifying into other crops, particularly crops that might be utilised for energy production?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and we are certainly encouraging that. There has been much discussion about the options open to those who presently grow sugar beet for the kind of factory that he describes. For some farmers, diversification into other crops will be the best answer; for others, it will be a question of exploring what use they can make of the kind of crops that they grow now. I welcome the constructive, sensible debate that is taking place on this issue. Most people recognise that change is bound to come and are considering how the change can be most beneficial. The report that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee recently produced made a very positive contribution to that debate, which will certainly continue for some months yet.

Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State will be aware that half the country's beet is grown in Norfolk. Contrary to popular myth, many of the growers are smallholders who depend on sugar beet and they have had a very difficult time following a wretched harvest. Will she bear in mind the interests of the small grower?

Margaret Beckett: Yes, I certainly will. It is not always recognised that there is a mixture of growers and that they do not always have identical interests. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

Linda Gilroy: In her discussions with other EU Ministers, has my right hon. Friend been able to discuss the compensation arrangements for the African, Caribbean and Pacific—ACP—countries that have traditionally benefited from guaranteed prices? When she does so, will she ensure that the cane sugar growers will benefit as well as the mill refiners? Does she also agree that, in this respect, an opportunity is emerging for fair trade sugar products?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There is general recognition and acceptance of the considerable problems that the much-needed reform in the sugar regime would bring to the ACP countries and some others, and there is a wish to address those issues. The UK attaches particular importance to the need for transitional measures. I take her point about the fair trade implications, but even at existing prices—which are now around three times world levels—the ACP producers and, indeed, some others are already in difficulty. So it is not simply a matter of there being difficulties if reforms took place; there are difficulties now. This is something that we have to take into account as we pursue reform, as I hope that we will.

Foot and Mouth

Hugo Swire: What progress she is making in paying compensation following the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

Ben Bradshaw: All statutory compensation due to farmers for animals slaughtered during the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak has been paid. However, 20 outstanding claims for increased compensation are being considered. In addition, the Department has 26 other claims from farmers relating to the outbreak.

Hugo Swire: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply, particularly given the fact that, back in November 2001, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), in an answer to me said:
	"Agriculture has been given a high priority",
	and that the Government were
	"committed to compensating farmers as far as possible for the effects of the disease."—[Official Report, 8 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 361.]
	Yet here we are, some years later, but not everybody has been compensated. Not all the agrimonetary compensation has been called down. Is it therefore perhaps worth understanding why farmers in the south-west simply do not understand why the Government will not hold a full inquiry into the ravages inflicted by foot and mouth, and why they are extremely nervous that, were such an occurrence to happen again, the Government would still be unprepared?

Ben Bradshaw: I am not sure whether that question really hung together. As I said in my original answer, all the statutory compensation has been paid. Out of thousands of cases, a tiny handful have not been settled, some because the farmers have let them lie dormant for a while, some because they are being disputed. The hon. Gentleman needs to be reminded that, were it not for the hard work of my officials, we would have lost nearly £800 million to the taxpayer through overpayment in cases involving fraudulent or inflated claims.

James Paice: It is astonishing if no Minister has seen the video that shows the failings of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of the inspections at Burnside farm. Despite the fact that that video and Mr. Dring's report were not shown to the Anderson inquiry, the Anderson report made it clear that, to keep illegal meat imports out of the country, DEFRA should be given responsibility for co-ordinating all activities, including improving surveillance and adopting best practice from import regimes elsewhere. Does the Minister really believe that, in trying to deal with an outbreak that cost perhaps £3 billion last time and which could cost a lot more next time—indeed, if human disease is brought in through illegal meat imports, it could cost lives as well—four extra sniffer dogs and a refusal to use X-ray equipment for searching baggage is a satisfactory response to the Anderson recommendations?

Ben Bradshaw: The Conservatives continue with their historic attempt to deflect blame for the foot and mouth outbreak away from where it belongs—with the farmer who was responsible for illegal and irresponsible practices, and who was prosecuted for them—and towards MAFF, as it was then called, and the people who check illegal imports. Professor Anderson has already said that, even if he had had all the information that has come to light in the past few months, his recommendations would have been exactly the same.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I draw the House's attention to the fact that, as my entry in the Register of Members' Interests shows, I am a farmer. Compensation for foot and mouth is but one example of DEFRA's failure in its dealings with that outbreak. One of the first things that this Government did was to launch the Phillips inquiry into BSE, which cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. Why will they not now grant a similar inquiry with a full remit to examine every aspect of the way in which they badly handled the foot and mouth crisis?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman's party refused to have any inquiry at all into BSE when in government, so it is rich for him, given that we have had several inquiries into foot and mouth, now to demand another. Has he spoken to the shadow Treasury spokesman about an extra spending commitment?

Raptors

Roger Williams: What discussions she has held with the Department of Trade and Industry on (a) possible changes in registration charges for captive raptors and (b) the impact of such changes on small businesses involved in raptor breeding.

Elliot Morley: No discussions have yet been held. Charges for birds needing to be registered under section 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 will not be reviewed until officials have consulted stakeholders on new proposals concerning the species to be included on the schedule. Officials will consult fully with the Department of Trade and Industry's Small Business Service at all stages.

Roger Williams: I thank the Minister for that reply, but, as I understand it, consultation is taking place with DEFRA, and suggested increases in registration charges and in the cost of licences relating to CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species—could put real pressure on small businesses and impede the valuable conservation work being done in this country. Will he meet representatives from the Hawk Board and hon. Members from across the political spectrum to discuss the matter?

Elliot Morley: I am always willing to meet hon. Members who have a particular constituency or other interest that they wish to discuss with the Department. There are two issues here. Consultation recently took place on CITES charging, which applies only to raptors that fall within the terms of such regulations, and we are still considering our response. Consultation on registration charges, which is a separate issue, has not yet taken place, although there has been consultation with the Hawk Board, and a seminar on this issue is being organised. Such consultation is still going on and we would be interested to hear the board's views. If, having made its representations, it still wants to have a meeting, I will be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the Minister's kind invitation. Will he put on the record his recognition of the valuable conservation work done by the raptor breeding programme in the UK, whose international reputation is well deserved?

Elliot Morley: Yes, I am happy to acknowledge the first-class work done by many organisations in conservation and captive breeding programmes. Indeed, we have recognised the importance of this issue in the consultation on CITES charges.
	What I am concerned about in relation to charges for management and inspection for overall sectors is ensuring that there is an element of recovery. It should not fall entirely on the taxpayer, but I am willing to take all these issues into account.

Beef

Nicholas Winterton: If she will make a statement on beef exports from the United Kingdom.

Margaret Beckett: UK beef prepared under the date-based export scheme is being exported to a number of EU countries. In the light of recent positive opinions from the European Food Safety Authority, we will continue to work with the European Commission to ensure that restrictions on UK beef exports are eased as quickly as possible.

Nicholas Winterton: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I am not a farmer, but I represent many farmers and beef production is very important in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State say in the House today that UK beef is the best in the world and that it is tender and tasty? Will she tell us what plans the Government have formulated to promote increased exports of British beef once the over-30-month scheme has been lifted?

Margaret Beckett: I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Gentleman's words. Not only is British beef the best in the world, I strongly believe that it is probably the safest to consume in the world. We are continuing to work fully with the European Commission to ease any remaining restrictions. As to how we can further promote the export of British beef when those restrictions are lifted, he will be aware that some of the first beef exports since the foot and mouth epidemic went earlier this month to the SIAL—Salon International de l'Alimentation—food exhibition in Paris. It was, I fear, Southern Counties Fresh Foods beef, but I know that he will not mind that too much. That provides a good example of exactly the sort of promotion that I am confident that the beef industry, and the meat industry as a whole, is itching to undertake.

Martin Smyth: When did the Secretary of State last have discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on these issues? I understand that there is a health issue and that it might be impeding the export of beef. That should not be allowed to continue.

Margaret Beckett: We are, of course, in continual discussion with all Government colleagues who are affected by this matter. We are also in discussions with the Commission and the House may like to know that our chief vet met the Commission last week precisely to discuss how to take all these matters forward. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep in touch with all the relevant players. There are, as he will know, some remaining queries about inspection, enforcement and so forth, but we are endeavouring to address them as speedily as we can.

Tim Yeo: The Secretary of State has just said that British beef is now the safest in the world. How much longer will it take Ministers to persuade the EU to make the necessary changes to the date-based export scheme so that the long overdue abolition of the over-30-month scheme, which is already justified in food safety terms, can happen and be followed by full exploitation of the large potential export market for British beef?

Margaret Beckett: Obviously, I cannot put a date on it, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as I said a moment ago, we continue to discuss the issues with the Commission, as our chief vet did last week. We need to obtain a further satisfactory Food and Veterinary Office report and deal with related issues, but he may like to know that the forward plan presented by the Commission to the Agriculture Council last Monday envisaged lifting the UK embargo in 2005. We are working with as much urgency as we can to address these issues.

Recycling (Southampton)

Sandra Gidley: If she will make a statement on the five-year recycling record of Southampton city council.

Elliot Morley: Southampton city council has demonstrated steady improvement over the last five years from a household waste recycling and composting rate of 8 per cent. in 1998–99 to 12 per cent. in 2002–03, the most recent year for which audited data are available.

Sandra Gidley: The Minister will be aware that that rate is low, and that the Labour group devised a new refuse collection and recycling scheme to boost the figures. The Liberal Democrats supported that scheme and implemented it on taking control of Southampton city council, but Labour councillors have now scuppered it. Will the Minister speak to them and tell them that recycling and protecting the planet are far more important than petty political posturing?

Elliot Morley: I cannot get involved in local issues, apart from saying that the formerly Labour-controlled Southampton council advanced excellent proposals and received £1 million from the Government to implement them. I do not know all the details, but I understand that the incoming Liberal Democrats made a series of pledges about household collection that they have had some difficulty in carrying out.

Fisheries Council

Alistair Carmichael: What the Government's main objectives at the next Fisheries Council will be.

Ben Bradshaw: Our objective at November's Fisheries Council, as at every such meeting, will be to maximise opportunities for the UK fishing industry while protecting fish stocks and progressing the important reforms of the common fisheries policy.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister is aware that the haddock permit management scheme has had very severe consequences for the Shetland white fish fleet in particular. Does he accept that, if that is rolled over for the beginning of 2005, there is a risk that that will lead to substantial dumping of haddock—surely something that no one wants? Will he make the removal of that scheme one of his main priorities at November's discussions?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I am well aware of the problems that the hon. Gentleman outlined, especially since my visit to the Shetlands this summer. His fishing industry representatives there made me very well aware of the problems being caused. It is important that we maximise fishermen's opportunities to catch fish such as haddock, which are plentiful, while protecting cod. However, we will look closely at what we might be able to do in the run-up to this November's Council meeting to help address the problems that the hon. Gentleman described. If he or his industry have any practical suggestions about how that might be done that they have not submitted to my officials already, I should be very grateful to receive them.

Milk

Annette Brooke: What assessment her Department has made of changes in the farm-gate price for liquid milk in the last 10 years.

Alun Michael: The farm-gate price of milk has generally declined over the past 10 years. That is mainly due to exchange rates, but other factors affect the farm-gate price, including prices on world commodity markets, domestic supply and demand, the value of the product mix and the structure of the UK dairy industry.

Annette Brooke: What advice can the Minister give to organic farmers in my constituency, who find current farm-gate prices inadequate to sustain their activities, whereas supermarkets are thriving?

Alun Michael: It is fair to point out that farm-gate prices in August were at 18.43p per litre, which was 0.01p higher than in July. One has to look at these matters over a period of time, and the way in which a product is marketed is also an issue for many producers. I think that the hon. Lady wants me to give business advice to her producers, but I do not think that that is necessarily my role.

Patrick McLoughlin: At a time when the price of bottled water is higher than the price of milk, what future does the Minister see for the British dairy industry?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman knows that the industry is bound to change as a result of reform of the common agricultural policy. It will have to meet the needs of the market rather than simply reach certain levels of production. The reports that we have seen—such as last year's KPMG study, and the Competition Commission's investigation of the role of the supermarkets in 1999–2000—show that there are complex reasons for different price levels. It is therefore wise not to set those findings, which demonstrate the complexity of the issue, on one side.

David Heath: No one expects the Minister to give business advice to constituents, but we do expect him to take an interest in the future of the dairy industry. Given that the Milk Development Council has confirmed what we all knew—that dairy farmers are struggling while supermarkets are making record profits—surely it is time for him to have words with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and do something about it.

Alun Michael: A recent study by the university of Manchester found that, in 2002–03, 60 per cent. of the milk produced in the UK was produced at a profit. That was produced by something like 40 per cent. of our dairy farmers, so there is change going on in the market. The result of CAP reform will be that production must meet the needs of the market.

Hill Farmers

Gordon Prentice: If she will take steps to boost the income of hill farmers.

Alun Michael: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Is it Question 19? [Hon. Members: "Yes."]
	The new countryside code, which I launched on 12 July this year, is being promoted through cartoon films on television, and at selected cinemas and outdoor venues. The code is available free of charge. It is also being promoted through tourist information centres and through the Countryside Agency website. Educational materials specially developed for teachers and youth leaders will be available from January 2005.

Gordon Prentice: That is an answer to a question that I did not ask.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for the Minister's answer. The Minister may have made a mistake. Since he does not often do so, perhaps the House will allow him to give the right answer.

Alun Michael: That is why I asked which question was being asked, Mr. Speaker. It does appear that several hon. Members are not with us today, but I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is in his place.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed on 22 April 2004 that the hill farm allowance will continue to operate for the remainder of the current England rural development programme to 2006.

Mr. Speaker: Was that all right, Mr. Prentice?

Gordon Prentice: In so far as it goes, Mr. Speaker.
	I am told that net farm income for hill farmers in the less favoured areas is some £12,000 a year, and one cannot easily keep body and soul together on such an income. What are the Government doing to boost the incomes of people on the hills who look after our famous landscapes in, for example, the Pennines? What steps are the Government taking to encourage young people into hill farming, given that the average age of hill farmers is close to 60?

Alun Michael: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the future for hill farmers, but it is fair to point out that provisional figures for net farm incomes in the English less favoured area suggests that they are some 20 per cent. above those of 2003. The hill farm allowance has provided dedicated support to upland farmers since 2001 and, in 2004, payments totalling £34.5 million were made to hill farmers in England.

Carbon Emissions

David Taylor: What action is planned to reduce domestic carbon emissions by 2010 beyond the targets set out in the Kyoto protocol; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: We announced the terms of reference for a review of the climate change programme on 15 September. That will assess progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and whether we are still on track towards our 2010 domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. It is too early to say what new initiatives will be included in the new programme that we aim to publish in the first half of next year.

David Taylor: It is encouraging to hear that adequate progress is being made, but does my hon. Friend fear, as I do, that because relatively little investment has been put into rail travel in non-main line areas, the major contributor to carbon emissions—the motor car—will continue to pose problems for this and future Governments?

Elliot Morley: It is certainly true that rail travel and other modes of public transport have an important contribution to make to reducing emissions and car usage. I am glad to say that the number of passengers using rail travel has increased. As my hon. Friend will be aware, huge investment has gone into track infrastructure, upgrading, new trains, better services and more comfort. I am sure that that will continue to attract more people. Encouraging rail travel and all forms of public transport is certainly an important part of combating climate change.

Robert Smith: Does the Minister recognise that a good way to reduce carbon emissions would be to encourage more renewable sources of heat, as well as electricity? There is concern that, although there are incentives to use biofuels and biomass for electricity generation, there is no incentive if it is purely substitution for heat. It would thus be sensible to bring in a renewables obligation for heat as well as for electricity.

Elliot Morley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, although the issue is more difficult in relation to heat than in terms of power. Nevertheless, use of combined heat and power systems is expanding, whereby more heat is being utilised, especially in manufacturing. Such issues have been put to us, particularly in relation to the national allocation plan and the way in which we allocate carbon credits, and we are giving them careful consideration.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 25 October—Opposition Day [20th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Political Interference in University Admissions Policy", followed by a debate entitled "Government's Failure on the Siting of Wind Farms".
	Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Tuesday 26 October—A debate on programming, deferred Divisions, carry-over, short speeches and the removal of references to strangers.
	The necessary motions for the debate have been printed in this morning's Order Paper, with explanatory memorandums available in the Vote Office.
	Wednesday 27 October—Remaining stages of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 28 October—Second Reading of the School Transport Bill.
	Friday 29 October—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 1 November—Second Reading of the Gambling Bill.
	Tuesday 2 November—Remaining stages of the Children Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 3 November—Motions relating to the Senior Salaries Review Body's triennial review of parliamentary pay and allowances, followed by a debate on the Procedure Committee's report on the Sessional Orders and resolutions.
	Thursday 4 November—A debate on defence procurement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 5 November—The House will not be sitting.
	As I outlined to the House last week, the printed Commons calendar is now available from the Vote Office.

Oliver Heald: I welcomed the calendar last week; it is a useful document.
	I thank the Leader of the House for at last finding time for debates on the Procedure Committee reports. Given that we have had to wait almost a year, does he understand the disappointment at this morning's negative Government response on programming? The Committee's proposals seem modest enough, so will he not think again? It is in the interests of the House to find an agreed, lasting solution to this thorny issue.
	On Sessional Orders, given that, again, the Leader of the House has had a year to think about the matter, and that he has support from all parts of the House, including Mr. Speaker, will he confirm that he will table proposals to tackle the continuing problems in Parliament square?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman consider adding two reforms to next Tuesday's business? Almost a year ago, the European Scrutiny Committee asked him to change Standing Orders to allow it to deliberate in public. That would provide the public and business with an early warning system for European proposals. The CBI has welcomed the idea, so why not do it next Tuesday?
	Secondly, I have been pressing the Leader of the House for progress on the Osmotherly rules. Will he propose a forum, perhaps a Sub-Committee of the Liaison Committee, where disputes between Select Committees and the Government over witnesses and documents could be resolved by discussion?
	Can the Leader of the House report any progress on my request last week for a debate on the middle east?
	May we have an urgent statement on the report that the chief executive of Tees Valley Regeneration has been campaigning for a yes vote in the north-east regional assembly referendum? Does not that breach Government guidelines that impose a purdah period on any person whose expenses are defrayed from public funds or by a local authority, under section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000?
	Finally, may we have a statement on the British grand prix? This country is the home of international motor racing. Mr. Ecclestone says that the grand prix has been cancelled. Media reports suggest that Ministers have been involved in discussions. May we be told about the present position and what can be done? It would be very sad indeed for the nation if the event were lost.

Peter Hain: As an enthusiastic Formula 1 fan, I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), in whose constituency Silverstone is sited, that it would be disastrous for British motor sport if the British grand prix were struck off the Formula 1 calendar. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism has been working tirelessly with motor sport's authorities. However, I can say from personal knowledge that the politics of Formula 1 is even more difficult than the politics of the House. The internal difficulties in Formula 1 are legendary, but I hope that they will not stand in the way of the British grand prix at Silverstone being reinstated for next year. I thank the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for raising the matter.
	We have listened to all representations made on programming, including that of the Procedure Committee, and have proposed a sensible approach. We have adopted several proposals that were suggested. Hon. Members will have the chance to debate the matter next week.
	I understand and agree with the concern about Sessional Orders and the situation in Parliament square expressed by the hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members and, indeed, Mr. Speaker himself. We will signal our intentions during the debate. Primary legislation will be necessary, and we will make proposals at the appropriate time.
	On the question of European regulations and legislation and an early warning system, I strongly support the principle of mainstreaming European matters rather than confining them only to the expert group of hon. Members who conduct such effective scrutiny in the European Scrutiny Committee. The hon. Gentleman should support the new European constitutional treaty because, for the first time, it would allow Parliament to vet any new proposal from the European Commission, which would be a big advance for democracy. Given the cause that he argued from the Dispatch Box a moment or two ago, he should back the Government in giving Parliament much greater powers on new European proposals.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Osmotherly rules. I addressed the Liaison Committee the other day, and we had a good sitting during which I was questioned rigorously and gave my views. I stated that the Government will now embrace the presumption that requests from a Select Committee for Ministers or civil servants, including special advisers, to appear before it will be agreed to, subject to Ministers having the final decision. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. There is no need for a sub-committee. The House is paralysed by "committee-itis", and that it not a criticism of Select Committees—[Laughter.] There is a proliferation of sub-committees and one can never find out who is making decisions. I am a great fan of Select Committees—I made that clear the other day—but I am not a fan of setting up more sub-committees instead of resolving matters in the usual way.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about a debate on the middle east, about which we are all anxious. The Prime Minister has said that immediately after the American elections in early November—10 or so days away—he will try to get an urgent reactivation of the middle east peace negotiations.
	There is a clear political disagreement about the north-east referendum, although not about its rules, which are absolutely clear and must be adhered to. The truth is that the Conservatives do not want the north-east of England to have a strong voice for its regional interests. They want to see it stuck in the past, while next-door Scotland has its own national voice, while Wales has its own national voice through its Assembly and while London has its own national voice. The Conservatives wish to deny the north-east the chance to get its own national voice. Anyone who campaigns in the referendum, including Ministers such as me, must abide by the rules.

Paul Tyler: The Leader of the House just said that he is a great fan of Select Committees. May I remind him that the Procedure Committee is a Select Committee with all-party representation and that it has a Government majority? Its report on programming therefore has the support of all parties represented on the Committee. Will he assure us that, as this is a House matter, it will be subject to a free vote? There have been occasions when Government Whips have been seen to steer hon. Members into a particular Lobby. Can we be sure that there will be a free vote for Government Members?
	Another Select Committee that I hope the Leader of the House takes even more seriously, as he chairs it, is the Modernisation Committee, which produced an excellent report earlier this year. I hope that he can now tell us that progress is being made. May I remind him that the report, "Connecting Parliament with the Public", contains an important section about the role of the media? Does he propose to timetable a debate on that report? What progress is being made? May we have a debate shortly?
	Does the Leader of the House accept that the role of the media in interpreting what happens within this building is extremely important, because many of our constituents learn what happens and how we operate from the media? The problem with the media today is that many people do not seem to understand the role of a Member of Parliament. In his discussions on this section of the report, will he emphasise the need for transparency and freedom of information in respect of editors and their role in public life? For example, perhaps he should suggest that they publish their salaries and expenses, the full cost of their offices and staff and how they would run two offices and two homes that are 250 miles apart. A bit of comparison would be useful for our constituents and for readers and viewers. Is the Leader of the House prepared to have those discussions? Does he think that they would be helpful, enabling us to understand what editors do, just as our electors understand better what we do?

Peter Hain: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's points, as he will understand. On the question of progress on the Modernisation Committee's report "Connecting Parliament with the Public", I receive monthly reports from the Clerk's Department on the progress that is being made in all these important areas. We want to make sure that Westminster and this House are user-friendly. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an enthusiastic supporter of that. We also have a progress meeting next week on the proposals for a visitors centre, which is different from the reception facility, to which the House has already agreed.
	I am a fan of Select Committees. It is important that they hold Ministers to account. Ministers in this Government have appeared before Select Committees more than Ministers in any other Government since Select Committees were first established. That is part of the Government's greater accountability to the House of Commons. For example, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made more statements to the House than Mr. Major or Mrs. Thatcher made in the equivalent periods. He also appears before the Liaison Committee, which never happened before.
	Of course there will be a free vote on the Procedure Committee issues and the question of programming. We need to keep it in perspective. We have an honest difference of opinion, and we might as well just accept it. The hon. Gentleman, along with members of the official Opposition, seems to be saying that he wants to go back to the old days of all-night sittings and filibustering. We have introduced a sensible approach to programming, which was called for before we came to power and was broadly endorsed by Conservative Members under the previous Administration. When programming works well, it is in the interests of the House because both in Committee and on the Floor of the House it allows hon. Members to focus on the issues that they want to focus on rather than listening to filibusters. Where programming does not work well—there are instances of that—it is usually the responsibility of those involved in drawing up and agreeing the timetable through the usual channels. We must bear it in mind that, by and large, programming is in the interests of the House.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend may have seen a photograph in The Times today of some of our colleagues promoting breast cancer awareness. That underlines the importance of the scientific research that goes unpromoted in this country and of the superb work in our hospitals. Will he find time for an early debate on such an important subject—not only breast cancer but the work that is going on in all cancer services—so that the people whom we represent have a truer picture of what is happening?

Peter Hain: I did indeed see the photograph—it was an excellent way for women Members of Parliament to raise the profile of an important subject. In the past decade, British women have experienced the biggest decrease in the world of deaths from breast cancer, and that is welcome. Under the Government, 99.6 per cent. of women whom GPs refer urgently with suspected breast cancer to a consultant are seen within two weeks. We are making rapid progress but a serious problem remains and my hon. Friend is right to raise it.

Douglas Hogg: May we have an early debate on the proposed security arrangements for this place? Many of us are worried that primary responsibility could be transferred from the existing authorities to the police, bearing it in mind that most of the most recent security upsets, for example, at Buckingham palace and Windsor castle, have been on premises for which the police were primarily responsible.

Peter Hain: Mr. Speaker has ruled on whether security matters should be debated on the Floor of the House and we must bear that in mind. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I can say that some of the press speculation and spin in the past week could not be further from the truth. The Government have no proposal to trample over the sovereign independence of the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
	The Joint Committee on Security and the House of Commons Commission agree that they want to establish a proper security co-ordinator for the Palace, which is one building for the purposes of security. We need a proper, professional modern approach, with the police and the security service having constant operational lines to whoever fills the new position. However, ultimately the holder of the new post should be answerable and accountable to Mr. Speaker in the Commons and the Chairman of Committees in the Lords. That is the right way in which to proceed.

John McDonnell: On 7 October, under the authority of the mutual legal assistance treaty and, we believe, at the instigation of the FBI, agents visited the offices of Indymedia and removed its computer servers. Indymedia is an international news agency that has extensively covered investigations into the war and the Bush and Berlusconi regimes. May we have a statement next week to explain on what authority the action was taken, what representations foreign Governments made and the justification for the action?

Peter Hain: I am not aware of the details of the matter but the Home Secretary will have noted my hon. Friend's points.

Alistair Burt: May I ask for an urgent debate in Government time about reports that the successful British food fortnight event is under threat because of lack of Government support? The event has boosted the regional food and drink industry by approximately £10 million in the past three years. It reinforces the connection between farmers, local sourcing and customers. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the organiser, Alexia Robinson, that we are running a nationwide enterprise like a cottage industry?

Peter Hain: Food fortnight week is an important initiative—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to raise food fortnight; I understand that he could not do that in DEFRA questions. In giving more resources to the Food Standards Agency and focusing on improved standards throughout the country and on diet, the Government are with the hon. Gentleman. It is also important to get increased markets for British food closer to home and to try to persuade the supermarkets to co-operate with that objective.

Julie Morgan: What plans has my right hon. Friend to give time for legislation to enable Wales to become smoke-free in public places? The Welsh Assembly has voted for that and requested legislation. New research has been published this week and Liverpool is moving forward on the issue. What about Wales? What can we do to ensure that Wales becomes smoke-free in public places?

Peter Hain: I am very sympathetic to the cause, which my hon. Friend has always prosecuted vigorously, and I note her point about Liverpool. The Secretary of State for Health will publish a White Paper on public health within a matter of weeks, and this issue will be addressed. My hon. Friend will be encouraged by the fact that there is now a serious debate about how we strike a balance between individual rights and public health in respect of both smoking and passive smoking.

Andrew MacKay: Returning to the serious issue of the future of the British grand prix, may I emphasise to the Leader of the House how important it is that the Minister for Sport and Tourism comes sooner rather than later to make a statement on the Floor of the House? Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will be robust with Mr. Ecclestone, despite the fact that he is a very generous donor to the Labour party?

Peter Hain: I think that he was an "un-donor" in the end—the party never got the money. This is very difficult and complicated, and we are all in the same position. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is keen from the point of view of not just motor racing sports fans such as us both, but Britain's pre-eminence in high-performance engineering. We are world leaders in that field, and we must ensure that we protect our position against severe competition, and it is absolutely crucial that we keep the British grand prix at Silverstone and on the Formula 1 calendar. The Minister for Sport and Tourism has been closely engaged in the negotiations; ultimately, however, Formula 1 and the FIA must agree which grand prix, from China to Britain, appear on the calendar. I hope that, even at this late stage, an agreement will be reached between the British Racing Drivers Club and Mr. Ecclestone, in the interests not just of Britain but of world sport because Silverstone is known throughout the world as the home of motor sport.

Geraint Davies: I have previously raised the issue of the Forestdale Forum community centre in Croydon, whose trustees fear the forfeiture of their lease by Warborough Investments, which has not acted illegally but whose activities led local trustees to ask to be given legal support. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following my campaign, Croydon council has now agreed to become a joint trustee to provide that support? Will he welcome that and find time to debate a review of land legislation to protect such community centres, which provide valuable family and social support, more comprehensively across London and Britain in future?

Peter Hain: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tireless campaigning and strong leadership on the issue. Although the issue is specific to Croydon, I am sure that it is of general interest throughout the country. I pay tribute to the good work of the forum, the trustees and similar people throughout Britain who work tirelessly without reward for the good of their local communities. If it is possible to find time for him to raise the issue in another place, I am sure that he will seek to do so.

Julian Lewis: The Leader of the House will remember the point of order that I made last week about the troubles in Parliament square—not on the question of the permanent demonstration that has been alluded to today, which does indeed require primary legislation, but on the abusive, antisocial behaviour not only of the permanent demonstrator but of visiting demonstrators who fill the square with amplified noise, which can only serve to spoil the amenity for visitors and imperil the security of the House by distracting the police and security guards who are trying to protect us. I asked whether he would pick up the phone and ask the police why they are not taking action in respect of that noise, which they would take if it were occurring elsewhere. Has he made that call? If he has not, may I suggest that he ring 0207–321 7501 and ask to speak to Superintendent Peter Terry? If he does not do that, I will, and I hope that many colleagues will do so and that, in the unlikely event that the politically correct media report this, members of the public will do so as well.

Peter Hain: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is going to ring that number, and I wish him well. I have been involved in a lot of detailed discussions and consultations about this matter, which is difficult because of the state of the law, but it is irritating—hence the announcement that I made only moments ago.

Keith Vaz: May we have a debate on violent video games next week? My right hon. Friend will know that I have raised in the House the case of Stefan Pakeerah, the Leicester schoolboy who was murdered by a friend who was obsessed with the game Manhunt. Next Friday, the makers of that video will release a new version of Grand Theft Auto that is said to be even more violent than the previous game. May we have a statement or a debate, or some kind of ministerial action before that new game is released?

Peter Hain: I share my hon. Friend's amazement about such videos, which are monitored by the authorities, both the police and the Government. No doubt his points will have been noted because they are very serious.

Marion Roe: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there have been ongoing discussions about a proposal to extend the remuneration of Chairmen of Select Committees to include members of the Chairmen's Panel and other officers? Can he give any further information on that subject?

Peter Hain: I reassure the hon. Lady that we have, in fact, agreed to ask the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider the remuneration arrangements of members of the Chairmen's Panel. The Chairman of Ways and Means has made representations to me. Obviously, it is a matter for the SSRB—an independent body that sets all our pay and allowance conditions in the House. It is important that people remember that we do not set our own levels; they are recommended by an independent report. I hope that the SSRB will consider that request sympathetically. I am personally sympathetic to it because the hon. Members who serve on the Chairmen's Panel do a very good job, which is often not properly acknowledged, and the Chairman of Ways and Means has come up with a good proposal, which I personally support, although it is for the SSRB to make a recommendation.

Gordon Prentice: I appreciate that a defence debate will be held in a few moments, but is there not a case for a separate statement on the four Upholder class submarines, which the Royal Navy decommissioned a decade ago, that were sold to Canada? My right hon. Friend will know that one of those submarines, HMCS Chicoutimi, caught fire, with loss of life—sparks as big as golf balls ricocheted down the submarine—and that an inquiry has been set up by our sister House of Commons in Ottawa, where the incident is causing huge concern and tremendous controversy and press comment. It warrants a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence.

Peter Hain: Like all hon. Members, I am aware of the concern about and problems with that matter, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. The Secretary of State for Defence will follow me to make a statement on another matter, but my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise the issue in the defence debate later this afternoon if he chooses to do so.

Annabelle Ewing: The fact that the Cabinet discussed this morning the redeployment of the Black Watch in Iraq clearly shows the importance of the issue and that, ultimately, a political decision is involved. If the Cabinet can have a political debate about the redeployment of the Black Watch in Iraq, why cannot the House of Commons?

Peter Hain: The Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House in a matter of minutes to answer any question that the hon. Lady might want to put to him, if time allows. Those issues should be raised with the Secretary of State for Defence in the proper fashion. He is coming to the House to make a statement at the earliest opportunity following the Cabinet meeting today, and I should have thought that she welcomed that.

Alan Whitehead: Last week, my right hon. Friend indicated that he would consider the suggestion that the House might debate the House of Commons Commission's annual report. Has he had an opportunity to consider that suggestion in the past week? If not, when will he be able to do so? Will he consider scheduling an annual debate on the publication of each annual report? Will he perhaps put that at the back of the estimable calendar that he has introduced today?

Peter Hain: I am not sure that it would be sensible to put such a debate in the calendar because of the nature of arranging business. However, having consulted informally with Mr. Speaker, I will provide time for a debate on the annual report of the House of Commons Commission, as requested by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). There is universal support for that, including from the shadow Leader of the House. The report is a fine one, which I would say as I am a member of the Commission. It shows the important work that the Commission undertakes and will provide us with an opportunity to debate all sorts of matters that come under its remit.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement on business rates to be made by a Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? The Government have recognised the problem with small businesses and are considering a discount scheme. However, the businesses in my area are concerned that they have come up with the wrong solution. In particular, the National Farmers Union argues that its rates are increasing by £1,000 and it is struggling to employ another person. If it could be part of a discount scheme, it would employ someone else, as would other businesses.

Peter Hain: The Minister for Local and Regional Government will make a statement on those matters in the usual way as part of the normal cycle, as he does every year. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to scrutinise that.

David Taylor: The Leader of the House, in various parties over the decades, has campaigned effectively on libertarian issues, including in the '80s on the level of the UK prison population. Does he share my dismay that it is heading inexorably towards 80,000? Does he not believe that the time is right for a full debate on penal policy, not least because in the past few days Martin Narey, the new chief of the National Offender Management Service, has threatened the Prison Officers Association with prison privatisation? Does he have that power? Is my right hon. Friend as dismayed as I am at that negotiating tactic?

Peter Hain: I am not sure that that description is accurate, but no doubt my hon. Friend will pursue it. I think he will welcome the fact that the publication of the latest quarterly report from the British crime survey shows that the risk of being a victim of crime is the lowest since the survey began under the Conservatives in 1981—in other words, for more than 20 years. Crime in England and Wales has fallen 7 per cent. Violent crime is down by 6 per cent. and violence involving any injuries has dropped by 12 per cent. There has been a 10 per cent. fall in the use of handguns, and firearm offences show a 15 per cent. drop in fatal injuries. There are still big problems, including gun crime, but we are making incredible progress compared with where we were years ago.

Nicholas Winterton: It would be ungracious of me not to thank the Leader of the House for providing time to debate two Procedure Committee reports, one on programming and the other on Sessional Orders and resolutions.
	On next week's debate on programming, which will include the subject of short speeches, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, following what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, the Committee is dominated by Labour Members and we agreed a report that we thought produced a balance on programming which would make it more acceptable to the House as a whole and all the political parties within it? Even if he will not change his mind at this stage on his response to it and the motions that he has tabled, will he guarantee that the matter will be decided on a genuinely free vote? The Procedure Committee, which I chair with great honour, is deeply concerned about the way in which the House can do the job that people elect it to do.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is one of the last people in the House whom I would ever accuse of being ungracious.
	I understand the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. We thought carefully about the Procedure Committee's recommendations and compared them with the Modernisation Committee's recommendations. Throughout this time, we have tried to build a consensus on programming. Some of the points that we have taken on board show that that is the case—[Interruption.] I understand that there is a Liberal-Conservative coalition on the subject, but it would be interesting to know whether the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats would reverse programming if they ever got into government together. I think that it has worked well in the interests of all Members, not just the Government.

Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend will recall that when the draft Disability Discrimination Bill was published it was welcomed with great acclaim by disabled people, their organisations and hon. Members on both sides of the House. He will also recall the fanfare of approval it received in the report of the Joint Committee that scrutinised it, on which I had the honour of serving. Indeed, the Government's response to that report was also favourably received. Will he assure the House that there is no reason why the Bill cannot make rapid and successful progress, with support from both sides of the House, from now on?

Peter Hain: I agree that the Bill is vital to the interests of people with disabilities. That is why the Government were anxious to introduce it as soon as possible, which is why I announced last week that we would introduce it shortly. It is therefore with great disappointment that we discovered that the Opposition in the House of Lords are trying to block its early progress. It is not for me to go into the usual channels' negotiations, but we made a proposal that would have allowed early progress on the Bill, and that has not been supported. That is very disappointing. I hope that the Opposition in the House of Lords reconsider their decision.

George Young: I also welcome the debate on Sessional Orders and Parliament square, some 11 months after I first asked for it.
	Will the Leader of the House now find time for a debate on police authority funding? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House spent yesterday talking to their police authorities. Hampshire constabulary and others are deeply concerned that the resources available to the Home Office will not even fund a standstill budget next year. The opportunity of getting the council tax payer to fund the difference is not available because of capping. Does he want to fight a possible general election against a background of reduced police authority funding? Can we help him avoid that by debating it soon?

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remark. Perhaps I did not make this clear to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), but let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a free vote on all House matters, as there always is.
	On police authority funding, there is no question of cuts. The Government have put record investment into policing. Police numbers are now at an historic high. Some 12,500 extra police officers have been recruited since we came into power. Any blips or difficulties in the process of settling individual police authority budgets in the coming year should be seen against that background of continued substantial increase in police funding.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the abuse by some hon. Members and political parties of the parliamentary procedure for submitting written questions so that they can create a dishonest league table—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member would act dishonestly.

Patrick McLoughlin: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to see the report issued this week by the Trading Standards Institute on premium rate fraud? Is he aware that the TSI calculated that phone-line fraudsters could be raking in as much as £1 billion a year? I have had complaints about that from people in my constituency. In Ashbourne there has been a bill for more than £500; in the Matlock area there has been a bill for more than £200; and in the Belper area there has been a bill for £200. This is a big fraud. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to tell us what action she will take to stamp out this fraud?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take close note of what he said and respond to it. If there is an opportunity to raise the matter on the Floor of the House in future, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will take it.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I suggest that my right hon. Friend's professed liking for Select Committees is in no small part due to the warm welcome he received earlier this year from the Procedure Committee and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)? I regard with dismay my right hon. Friend's comments that the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, whose arrival in the House so many Labour Members have looked forward to, may be derailed because of actions in the other place by unelected others.

Peter Hain: I share the dismay. It is astonishing that the Conservatives, in the main, in the House of Lords have been unable to agree to a sensible proposition to timetable debate, which would allow Second Reading to take place and therefore early progress to be made so that the Bill could be carried over into the next Session and would reach the statute book earlier than would otherwise be the case. I hope that they will reconsider their decision, because the Bill provides vital extra protection for people with disabilities and we as a Government are determined to deliver it.

Tim Boswell: The Leader of the House has already acknowledged in earlier exchanges the difficulties for Silverstone from the grim news about the British grand prix. He sought to steer an elegant course between the parties involved and any decision that is taken, yet he claimed credit for the actions of the Minister for Sport and Tourism and other Government Departments with an interest in the matter. My concern is to support the outcome constructively. Will the right hon. Gentleman please arrange for an early debate in Government time so that the whole matter can be thoroughly discussed?

Peter Hain: It may come to that, but let us see what happens in the meantime. The hon. Gentleman may have other opportunities to raise the matter. I know he has always been a big supporter of the British grand prix in every respect, not just because it is in his constituency. The Government have provided quite a lot of funding for Silverstone, both for the new road that has transformed the previously chaotic traffic arrangements around there, and to support the development of high performance engineering in the area around Silverstone. We are as committed as he is to the British grand prix. Unfortunately we do not control those who make the decision on it.

Wayne David: May I say how much I agree with the remarks of the Leader of the House about the need for the House to take European scrutiny and European issues far more seriously than it currently does? Will he indicate a timetable for the implementation of his suggestions for reform?

Peter Hain: The Modernisation Committee is considering how we might improve the scrutiny and mainstreaming of European issues in the House. We are due to issue a report when that has been completed. At the risk of repetition, I come back to what I said earlier: the main opportunity that the House will now have, which we have never had before, is to vet any new proposal from the European Commission for legislation, because we will have that right under the new European constitutional treaty. That is why I hope that Conservative Members and others will support the Government in promoting the European constitutional treaty, which for the first time gives the House democratic rights over what the European Commission initiates.

David Heath: Colleagues and I have repeatedly raised the issue of the proliferation of unauthorised Travellers' sites in our constituencies. Given the written answer of yesterday's date stating that there are 3,571 caravans on unauthorised encampments or unauthorised developments of land without planning permission, and the court case that occurred in recent weeks, is it not time that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister produced proposals which, to be fair, it has promised, to increase the powers of local planning authorities? Many people worry about the integrity of the planning process and relationships between our communities and travellers.

Peter Hain: I am sure that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will have noted the hon. Gentleman's question. I hope that he will support the Government in future on all these issues in the legislation that we introduce on antisocial behaviour and similar matters.

Graham Brady: May I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the answer that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in relation to police authority funding? Given that the Government have loaded additional costs on to police forces around the country yet are speaking about a simple inflation-linked increase in the grant next year, there will be massive shortfalls. In the case of my own constabulary, Greater Manchester police, it would lead to a shortfall of some £40 million. That would mean massive front-line cuts in policing. It is essential that the Government reconsider. May we please have an urgent debate on the matter?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, there has been a long-standing problem relating to the finances of the pension fund for the police. That has complicated the funding decisions that have to be made. He is right, as a Member of Parliament, to raise the matter in respect of his local area, and I understand that. But he ought to draw the attention of the House and his constituents to the fact that within two years of a Conservative Government taking power, a massive multi-billion pound cut is planned in Home Office budgets, including police funding. His voters ought to know that if the Conservatives won, the problems would be much worse and the council tax would go sky-high to cope with them.

UK Forces (Iraq)

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a further statement about the deployment of UK forces in Iraq.
	On Monday I explained to the House that the UK military had received, and was evaluating, a request from the US military command in Iraq for assistance that would involve UK land forces operating outside the Multi-National Division (South-East) area, in support of a combined Iraqi/US force.
	A reconnaissance team from MND(SE) deployed to the area in question earlier this week and has now reported back to the chiefs of staff. The team provided information on a number of issues including logistics, the length of the potential operation, the likely tasks, activity levels in the area, the force levels required, and the command and control arrangements. After careful evaluation, the chiefs of staff have advised me that UK forces are able to undertake the proposed operation, that there is a compelling military operational justification for doing so and that it entails a militarily acceptable level of risk for UK forces. Based on this military advice, the Government have decided that we should accept the US request for assistance.
	I emphasise again that this was a military request, and has been considered and accepted on operational grounds after a thorough military evaluation by the chiefs of staff. As I said on Monday, and as the Prime Minister said yesterday to the House, this deployment is a vital part of the process of creating the right conditions for the Iraqi elections to take place in January.
	We share with the Iraqi Interim Government and with our coalition partners a common goal of creating a secure and stable Iraq, where men, women and children in towns such as Falluja can feel safe from foreign terrorists, from the kidnappers who murdered Ken Bigley and from other criminals. Crucially, Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi and the Interim Iraqi Government want to establish sufficient security for elections to be able to take place in January. Recent successful operations by Iraqi security forces and coalition forces in Tal Afar, Samarra and on the outskirts of Falluja have been undertaken to restore areas under the control of militants and terrorists to the authority of the Iraqi Interim Government. As a direct result, the political process there is now moving ahead.
	We cannot consider the current UK area of responsibility in isolation. What goes on in the rest of Iraq affects southern Iraq and affects UK troops wherever they are based. We must therefore consider our contribution in the context of the overall security situation right across Iraq. This means that a UK armoured battle group consisting of the 1st Battalion the Black Watch and supporting units will deploy to an area within Multi-National Force (West) to relieve a US unit for other tasks. They will be deploying with the necessary combat support services such as signallers, engineers and medics, resulting in a total deployment of around 850 personnel. This deployment will be for a very limited and specified period of time, lasting weeks rather than months.
	I cannot give the House further details about the location, duration or specifics of the mission. I know that hon. Members on all sides will understand that to do so would risk the operational security of the mission and potentially the safety of our forces. Speculation from many quarters so far has not been helpful. I emphasise that there are no plans to send a further 1,300 troops to Iraq, as suggested this morning.
	Concerns have been expressed about UK forces coming under US command and about their rules of engagement. The arrangements for this deployment are that the force will remain under the operational command of General Rollo, the UK General Officer Commanding Multi-National Division (South-East).
	On a day-to-day basis, the Black Watch will, of course, have to co-ordinate its activity with the US chain of command in the locality, but any changes in the mission or the tasking would have to be referred back to General Rollo. As with all UK operations, our forces will operate at all times under UK rules of engagement, which will provide proper protection for our forces, as they have done throughout our operations in MND(SE).
	It is not unusual for UK and US forces to work alongside each other—they have successfully done so not only in Iraq, with US forces often providing logistical support for our own forces and therefore reducing the number of troops and assets that we need in theatre, but in operations all over the world. Indeed, in Bosnia, about 22,000 US troops operated under UK command. As I said in my statement on Monday, UK forces in Iraq work alongside forces from Italy, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Japan and other countries on a daily basis. That is an effective and practical way to ensure coherence both in our own area and with those areas that surround it.
	There has also been speculation as to why there is a need for this UK force to backfill for a US unit, when there are around 130,000 US troops in Iraq. The armoured battle group brings important qualities of extensive training, experience, and hard-edged combat capability. It is not the case, as is often implied, that there are 130,000 US troops that could take on that task. In fact, less than one third of US forces in Iraq have the requisite combat capability, and of those even fewer have the armoured capability that is needed.
	Specialised armoured forces are already highly committed across Iraq, which is about four fifths the size of France. The chiefs of staff have further concluded therefore that the provision of a UK battle group to that new mission would be a significant contribution to and would materially increase the effect of the continuing operations to maintain pressure on the terrorists before the January elections.
	On Monday, hon. Members raised the question of whether that deployment will leave sufficient forces to deal with contingencies in our own area of responsibility in the south. The roulement of British forces currently under way includes an armoured infantry battle group of the 1st Battalion Scots Guards with their own Warrior armoured vehicles, which will fulfil the divisional reserve role currently undertaken by the Black Watch. That will result in General Rollo temporarily having an extra armoured battle group under his command, which will provide a robust force capable of dealing with any contingencies. It is also worth remembering that the other UK forces in MND(SE) will continue to carry out their tasks in the professional and effective manner that has become so apparent to the people of Basra and the surrounding area—they restore power, water and basic facilities and support the Iraqi authorities in ensuring a robust level of security.
	The deployment is limited in scope, time and space, and it does not represent a permanent significant additional commitment of forces. The overall trend in the numbers deployed in Iraq remains down, from the peak of 46,000 during the war-fighting phase to around 8,500 today. That overall downward trend is expected to continue as we continue to train Iraqi security forces to take over from UK forces, as has happened, for example, in Amarah in Maysan province.
	The Government remain totally committed to the Iraqi Interim Government and the need to hold free elections in January. We also remain committed to protecting innocent Iraqis, dealing with terrorists, kidnappers and criminals, training and equipping Iraqi forces so that they can take our place providing security, and seeing a democratic Government in Iraq who will take their rightful place in the international community and who will deliver prosperity and a secure future for the Iraqi people. That should unite both sides of the House, and it is right that the United Kingdom should contribute to those objectives. The deployment of the Black Watch will emphasise to the Iraqi people that the UK will continue to contribute to the coalition and see the task through.

Nicholas Soames: The House will be relieved that the Secretary of State has finally moved to end the unnecessary and unacceptable confusion of the past few days and announced the Government's decision on this important matter. As I made plain in my response to his statement on Monday, Conservative Members fully support the coalition as it seeks to bring democracy, stability and freedom to Iraq and preserve Iraq's territorial integrity. We agree that we should do what we can to contribute to that strategic objective.
	In the light of what the Secretary of State has told the House today, and having heard that the deployment has the support of the chiefs of staff following reconnaissance reports that the proposed mission is both feasible and fully within the capabilities of the Black Watch battle group, Conservative Members support the deployment on the basis that it is a necessary operational military contribution to the coalition's efforts to bring peace and stability to Iraq ahead of the January elections.
	I will, if I may Mr. Speaker, press the Secretary of State, in the light of this decision, on a number of the points that I made to him on Monday. First, will he clarify his rather complicated assurances on the rules of engagement? Will he again confirm that the rules of engagement are indeed robust enough to cope with the change of area, mission and task?
	Secondly, will he assure the House that troops about to face the enemy will not have their essential confidence undermined by the possibility of a commanding officer's legal judgments being subsequently overruled, as has recently been the case?
	Thirdly, bearing it in mind that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we are about to enter a period of increased activity in Iraq, will the Secretary of State confirm that there is likely to be a surge requirement for extra troops to Iraq ahead of the Iraqi elections in January? If so, where will those troops come from?
	Fourthly, does the Secretary of State anticipate deploying the over-the-horizon assets that he holds in Cyprus? Is he satisfied as to the arrangements both for command and control and for air cover? Fifthly, will he say whether troops currently serving in Iraq will have their tour extended? Finally, are there any additional plans for further redeployment of British troops outside MND(SE)?
	No doubt the Secretary of State will wish at his earliest convenience to apologise to the families of the Black Watch battle group for the exceptionally shabby way in which he has treated them.
	The House and the nation can be supremely confident that the Black Watch, the Royal Highland Regiment, which bears the distinction of Baghdad 1917 as one of its battle honours, will carry out its task with all the fortitude, discipline and courage that we would expect from one of the finest regiments in the British Army. To them and to all the supporting arms who go with them in the battle group, we wish God speed.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has finally and rather belatedly made the Conservative party's position on the deployment clear. It was not obvious from his comments on Monday, and no one could have detected from the Conservative leader's observations yesterday whether the Conservative leader actually supports the deployment, so we have made some progress.
	I suspect that the hon. Gentleman prepared his questions before he heard my statement. I have already repeated the point about rules of engagement, which he has come very close to suggesting should be published—he denied such requests when he was Minister for the Armed Forces—and I am delighted to repeat again that our armed forces will have robust rules of engagement. The rules of engagement have been sufficient to protect them in their operations in MND(SE), and that will continue to be the case as far as this deployment is concerned. Every hon. Member knows that British forces, wherever they serve in the world, are subject to the law of this country. That remains the case, it will always be the case and British forces want nothing else.
	The hon. Gentleman's other questions largely concerned other matters not related to this particular deployment, and I shall certainly deal with them, perhaps in the debate that follows or on a future occasion. On apologies, he might like to reflect on the fact that his observations about the Black Watch were poorly received by the commanding officers of that distinguished regiment—very poorly received.
	They have gone out of their way to keep their people and families thoroughly informed about this deployment. I give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make that apology instead of making cheap political points at the expense of hard-working serving soldiers and their families.

Paul Keetch: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to make this statement and for an advance sight of it. Of course, all of us in this House wish the Black Watch well.
	Liberal Democrat Members did not support the war in Iraq, but we accept that we have a responsibility to the people of Iraq. However, we also have a responsibility to our troops serving there in terms of their protection, welfare and morale. For that reason, we believe that British troops should remain in the British sector under British command, so we do not support this redeployment. I hope that the Government have the confidence to put this issue before the House.
	Of course, there will be times when our forces will temporarily serve outside MND(SE), including the Royal Air Force, liaison units and special forces, but the protection of the men and women in MND(SE) must be the highest possible priority.
	Both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said that the security situation in Iraq could get worse in the short term due to Ramadan, any US attack on Falluja, and the run-up to the January elections. So is now a good time to move 850 battle-trained members of the Black Watch, with its Warrior armoured vehicles, some 350 miles away from supporting the remaining British troops in the south?
	Will the 1st Battalion the Scots Guards be in MND(SE) before the Black Watch moves? If the US attacks Falluja, will it be able to call on the Black Watch for support? What is the future of the Black Watch when it returns home? Will it be disbanded, as has been suggested and as has been campaigned against by my hon. Friends?
	Finally, if the only elections that these troops are being sent to support are the Iraqi elections in January, which troops will replace the Black Watch when it goes home before Christmas, as the Prime Minister promised yesterday?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman thanked me for making the statement available to him in advance. I am sorry that he did not study it a little more carefully, because several of the answers to his questions would have been apparent to him had he done so.
	It is important that the Liberal Democrats participate in this debate so that the country can see precisely where they stand on a number of key issues—

Charles Kennedy: Absolutely.

Geoff Hoon: Is the leader of the Liberal Democrats seriously suggesting, as he appears to be, that every time British forces in a theatre of operation are redeployed there needs to be a debate and a vote on it? Is he seriously suggesting that, across the wide range of deployments that British forces make, that kind of political opportunism would serve them well? We know full well from the Liberal Democrats that their policy would mean that Saddam Hussein was still in power in Baghdad today. Given the current situation in Iraq, are the Liberal Democrats seriously saying to the families of people like Ken Bigley that they would not take action against terrorists and take the necessary action to see democratic elections taking place in Iraq? Do they or do they not want free and democratic elections in Iraq? If not, they should say so, because their policies lead directly to that conclusion.
	The most fundamental question that the Liberal Democrats have to face up to is whether they back our troops. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has failed to do that.

Mike Gapes: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the deployment of British forces that he announced will be fully supported by the Iraqi Government, who wish to have robust action against the terrorists and those who murdered Ken Bigley and are currently taking other hostages in Iraq? Is it not about time that the Liberal Democrats ceased to be the Saddam Hussein preservation society?

Geoff Hoon: With the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government, all the operations that I have described to the House and, indeed, this deployment and this operation, will have to be with the consent of that sovereign Government of Iraq. It is the Iraqi Prime Minister and his Government who want to see the terrorists dealt with and an end to the attacks on innocent Iraqis.

Patrick Cormack: As one who agrees with the decision that has been taken and has every confidence in the ability of the Black Watch, may I press the Secretary of State on one point? If, when it returns at Christmas, there is a need for other troops to take its place, have contingency plans been made for that?

Geoff Hoon: As I sought to explain to the House in the course of my statement, the fact that the Black Watch will be going north and will in turn be replaced in position by the Scots Guards means that once it has been able to return home before Christmas we will be back to the steady state of forces that we currently have in MND(SE), so there will not be a significant change in the total numbers operating in the south.

Geraint Davies: Many colleagues would delay action for a couple of weeks beyond the US election. I do not want President Bush re-elected, but with every day that passes terrorists in Falluja are killing Iraqi people and taking UK hostages, and there will be more and more Bigleys. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is a military imperative to act we should do it now, not sacrifice UK and Iraqi lives just because we do not like George Bush?

Geoff Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, at any rate: it is important that we act on the request made to us not only by our US ally but, crucially, by the sovereign Government of Iraq, who want an end to the lawlessness, violence, terrorism, killing and kidnapping. This deployment will play a part in that process.

David Trimble: I understand the pressures that have been brought to bear on the Secretary of State with regard to making this statement, but I wonder whether it was the wise thing to do. He emphasised that the decision was taken purely on the basis of operational considerations. Such decisions and movements are bound to take place from time to time when we have allies working on a joint operation, as has happened elsewhere. Can the Secretary of State tell us what policy issues are relevant, because it is those, not operational matters, with which this House should be concerned?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who always approaches military questions in the light of very considerable personal knowledge and experience. As he knows, such deployments are made clearly to reflect a policy background, which I stated to the House—it is the importance of removing the terrorist threat to the people of Iraq and of allowing free democratic elections to take place on schedule in January, as has always been our policy.

Rachel Squire: As the Member for Dunfermline, which is the Black Watch's largest recruitment area, I had hoped, as had many of its families, that it would not be committed to an even more dangerous aspect of its current operations, especially as our US allies, despite having 121,000 more in their armed forces than we do, seem incapable or unwilling to deal with the situation. What commitment can the Secretary of State give to assure us that all the vital support and equipment will be provided and that those soldiers will return to their homes for Christmas?

Geoff Hoon: I have set out the reason for this deployment. I am absolutely confident that the Black Watch and all those, including our US allies, who will work so hard to ensure that the deployment is able to take place will do so successfully and satisfactorily.
	I am sorry that my hon. Friend expresses those views about the United States, which will be engaged in the deployment. I have explained to the House in some detail why this particular capability is necessary in order to allow wider operations against terrorists and kidnappers to take place.

John Stanley: Is it not the case that the US forces place considerably greater reliance on the use of offensive air power against urban terrorist targets than we do, and that time and again, most regrettably, so-called precision US air strikes have resulted in significant Iraqi civilian casualties, including women and children? Assuming that that pattern continues, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the risk that not only the Black Watch, but British forces generally, may, quite unjustifiably, be associated in the Iraqi public mind with having caused significant civilian casualties?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, not least because the capability of modern precision-guided weapons is now such that they can be precisely targeted in a way that he does not give credit for. The question also concerns whether it is right to try to deal with terrorists. I assure him that Iraqi public opinion wants the threats to security in Iraq and to the Iraqi people dealt with just as badly as the United States or the United Kingdom does. If he reflects on what he said, I am sure that he will realise that the sorts of terrorists operating in places such as Falluja are killing far more Iraqis than they are killing coalition forces. That is why the Interim Government are so determined to see them dealt with.

Eric Joyce: In view of the tawdry and rather irresponsible comments to the effect that Black Watch families have not been properly briefed up to now, will the Secretary of State confirm that they have been properly briefed and that that will continue?

Geoff Hoon: The commanding officers have been at great pains to provide information to the families of those men currently deployed in Iraq. That is why I took such exception to the ignorant comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).

George Osborne: Of course we must see the job through in Iraq, but is it not unfair to ask regiments such as the Black Watch, or my local regiment, the Cheshires, to serve with such bravery and distinction in Iraq, and then face them with abolition on their return?

Geoff Hoon: It is not a question of abolition; the hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is a reorganisation. We will have the opportunity to debate that in a few minutes, but there has been a long process of reorganising infantry battalions throughout the history of the British Army. He knows that full well, so why does he come to the House making such foolish assertions?

Robin Cook: In the light of my right hon. Friend's remarkable statement that only a third of US troops are combat-capable, would he agree with the US chiefs of staff when they warned Donald Rumsfeld that he was not sending enough US troops to Iraq in the first place? What assurances has he received from the US in return for this redeployment that, this time, it will listen to us as good and reliable allies when we advise it to minimise civilian casualties in Falluja, especially since, as a result of today's decision, we are much more likely to be held responsible for those casualties?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend and I worked closely together on Iraq and have discussed on many occasions the organisation of our armed forces. He knows full well that in any force there are front-line combat forces and support forces. That was my point, which is self-evident, as I am sure he would accept. Inevitably, a certain proportion of the US forces deployed in Iraq will be front-line combat forces, and a smaller proportion still will be armoured capable. That is why this particular deployment is necessary.

Hugh Robertson: May I take the Secretary of State back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne)? He will understand the importance of morale to soldiers about to deploy on active service. Given that the Black Watch has already served with distinction during the war, and is now on a second and dangerous tour of duty, can he give it any reassurance whatever that its reward for that distinguished service will not be amalgamation or reorganisation?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman, who generally speaks knowledgeably on these matters from his personal experience, knows full well the history of the British Army and of the need to reorganise to deal with modern reality. We will debate that issue in the debate that follows. Consistent with the recommendation of the Scottish colonels, for example, what we are looking to preserve is the identity of single battalion regiments within a larger amalgamated structure. That is something that has happened in the past and can happen in the future.

Karen Buck: I apologise for returning to a theme on which we have already touched, but in the past 24 hours I have received a great many messages from right across my constituency expressing concern about the proposed deployment. Apart from a theme of cynicism about timing—which I do not share, but which I believe must be understood and responded to—which runs through virtually all those messages, the single major theme is a concern about the impact on civilian casualties of an assault on Falluja. I ask my right hon. Friend to acknowledge the profound concern of my constituents about the impact on civilian casualties and the enhanced risk, as it is perceived, to British troops as a result of association with any excessive casualties.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I emphasise to the House, to her and to her constituents that considerable efforts are always made in any operation to minimise civilian casualties. At the same time, we must all face up to the fact that in Falluja, determined, ruthless, fanatical terrorists must be dealt with. They have to be dealt with in a way that is militarily effective and has regard to the safety and security of the forces carrying out those operations.

Pete Wishart: There will be a distinct chill felt in the homes of forces families across Tayside, Fife and beyond as the significance of this statement is assessed. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the Black Watch would be home by Christmas, yet nowhere in the statement is that confirmed. Will it be home for Christmas, or does the Secretary of State envisage some situation or set of conditions in which that pledge will not be honoured?

Geoff Hoon: I made it clear that this was a limited, specific deployment. The request from the US military command was for a deployment limited precisely in time. That is why the Prime Minister was able to say what he did yesterday. If there is any doubt, I can repeat it.

Dai Havard: A number of questions have already been asked about the rationale behind this release of American forces. I am still not clear exactly what tasks the Americans will be able to carry out once we provide this alleviation. The Secretary of State must understand that part of the problem is the lack of confidence that what he says, in relation to what the Brits will do in minimising civilian and other casualties, will be true in American deployments. We need some explanation of what the Americans will do once we assist them in doing it.

Geoff Hoon: May I make two points clear to my hon. Friend? First, whatever operations follow will be combined operations, involving Iraqi forces, led by an Iraqi decision-making process, but with support from US forces. Those will be consistent with the sorts of operations that I have already described to the House—operations to deal with centres of terrorism and areas that are outside the control of the Interim Government and providing a base from which terrorists can attack innocent Iraqi civilians and other innocent civilians operating in Iraq. Secondly, if we do not deal with those secure bases, it is much more difficult to see a secure, stable future for Iraq, and very difficult to see how democratic elections can safely be held.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Secretary of State confirm what his statement implies but does not quite say—that the 1st Battalion the Scots Guards will be fully deployed before the Black Watch deploy on this new operation?

Geoff Hoon: Obviously, there will be a period of overlap, as one force gets into place as another moves north. The hon. Gentleman will know from his experience that it is not sensible at this stage to give the precise dates and timings of those things.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that someone does not have to be a lover of Saddam Hussein to be against this deployment and against the war? We are mirroring the views of millions of people in Britain, and of people in his constituency and mine. That is valid reason enough. Does he not think that it is slightly ionic that the American President and his Vice-President, who both refused to face the muck and bullets in Vietnam, are now calling on British forces to bail them out?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend and I have regular discussions on all manner of issues. I say to him—and to the Liberal Democrats, although they may not like it—that the issue is that there is a difficult situation in Iraq. No one is in any doubt about that. There is significant terrorism in Iraq, and a sovereign Interim Government struggling to establish peace, freedom and democracy for their people. The issue that my hon. Friend and other Members must face is what they will do now. They can perfectly rightly say that they are opposed to the war, which I respect, but the issue is what action we take now to deal with terrorism and the people who would ruthlessly murder our citizens and the citizens of Iraq.

Julian Lewis: I think the Secretary of State is beginning to understand the meaning of friendly fire.
	We welcome the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman earlier this week and again today that British troops deployed in this relatively more dangerous area would be under the control of British senior officers, and would be able to apply the advanced counter-insurgency techniques in which they are so proficient. If, as a result, their methods prove superior to those previously applied by American forces, what steps will he take to ensure feedback to our American allies, so that they can benefit from the experiences of our troops?

Geoff Hoon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a close exchange of both information and technical operation between the United States and the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman considers the way in which US forces, for example, are deployed and operate further north than the so-called Sunni triangle, he will note that they operate in a very similar way to British forces in the south.

Laura Moffatt: My right hon. Friend rightly said that this was a military decision, and the House must have confidence in it, but can he confirm for the sake of clarity in the House and outside that such decisions are made on military grounds? Can he also confirm that this is the first time our forces have operated outside MND(SE)?

Geoff Hoon: It is not the first time they have done so.
	I accept that this is part of the role that coalition forces expect to play when they are part of a wider multinational operation. That is why it was important for us to look carefully at the military justification, and why we accepted advice given to us on that basis by the chiefs of staff.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Black Watch and the other UK regiments deployed in Iraq will have benefited significantly from their operational experience in Northern Ireland, which has contributed to the success of UK forces in the south-east zone. Will the Secretary of State assure us that that operational mode of deployment will not be set aside in the new deployment, although the Black Watch will remain under the command of the UK General Officer Commanding?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman would not necessarily expect me simply to agree with his question. The decision will be a matter for the commanding officer on the ground, once he has assessed the nature of the threat, the terrain on which the troops operate, and so on. However, having visited Northern Ireland many times and observed the techniques that the British Army has used in the past—and having seen the same techniques operating in such places as Basra—I pay full tribute to the support that the Army has been given by the people of Northern Ireland.

Gordon Prentice: Many of us are concerned about mission creep. What if the Americans make a formal request for British troops to go into Falluja or, perhaps, Baghdad? Would a decision on that be a matter for the UK military command alone?

Geoff Hoon: I assured the House on Monday that the request was not for troops to operate in either Falluja or Baghdad. I have set out the precise operational command today. In the very unlikely event of such a situation arising, the matter would have to be referred to commanding officers, and ultimately referred back here to chiefs of staff and Ministers.

Richard Younger-Ross: Can the Secretary of State tell us who will replace the Black Watch in the American sector when that regiment returns to Britain? Will it be replaced by British or American troops—especially if the Americans get bogged down in Falluja?

Geoff Hoon: I have made it absolutely clear that the request is for a deployment limited in time. At the end of that limited period, assuming that operations have been completed in Falluja, it will be a question of whether it is necessary to occupy that area or whether it is possible to take the area at risk. That is a matter for the Americans; it is not a matter for us.

Dave Watts: I welcome the statement and the clarification of the reasons for redeployment of our troops. May I now invite my right hon. Friend to explain the importance of the redeployment to the ability to hold free elections in Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: As I made clear on Monday and again today, this is about ensuring that pockets of resistance in places such as Falluja are dealt with, in order to reduce the terrorist threat to the Iraqi people and to coalition forces—and, of course, to ensure that progress is made not just in rebuilding Iraq, but in giving the Iraqi people an opportunity to participate in democratic elections.

Hugo Swire: Will the Secretary of State tell us which of the Government's overseas commitments, if any, will need to be reassessed in the light of the redeployment of the battle group?

Geoff Hoon: None.

John Denham: I entirely accept that the decision was not made for political reasons, but does my right hon. Friend accept that it carries a political cost? That cost will be borne in part by our political party, but also—perhaps more important in the big scheme of things—by the standing of this country abroad if the civilians deaths that we fear turn out to be on the scale that people are worried about.
	Does my right hon. Friend accept that the unease that is being expressed arises from a feeling that while our Government are willing to volunteer that political cost, when we look to our allies to make difficult political decisions—for example, on the Prime Minister's priority in regards to the middle east peace settlement—there is very little reciprocation?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend has always approached these issues in a careful, thoughtful and sophisticated way. It is important for us not only to continue our efforts in Iraq to promote the reconstruction of that country, but to use the influence that we gain as part of that process, and bring it to bear on all countries that are trying to obtain a secure and just settlement in the middle east. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is necessary to continue the process, and I assure him that the Prime Minister and other members of the Government are continuing their determined efforts to that end.

Richard Ottaway: If it is the case that only 40,000 American troops have the requisite combat capability, does the Secretary of State agree that the additional deployment only amounts to an extra 2 per cent.? Can he explain why he considers it to be a significant contribution?

Geoff Hoon: As I have tried to explain, this is an armoured capability. The request is for us to replace a relocating similarly armoured US capability so that it can be free—along with other forces, including significant contingents of Iraqi forces—to continue operations of the kind that are being conducted in places such as Samarra. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is a modest contribution, and indeed it is; nevertheless, it is a vital contribution and one requested of us by an ally.

Glenda Jackson: Is it not the case that the present policy, which this deployment of British troops will reinforce, has been a total and unmitigated failure? Far from eradicating terrorist centres, it has encouraged actions by terrorists and insurgents. Is it not also the case that it is impossible to guarantee that the minimum number of civilians will be killed in the all-out attack on Falluja? Surely the best thing that a British Government could do to support and protect the Iraqi people is to argue strongly to the American Government that they must, sooner rather than later, change their policy—and change it dramatically.

Geoff Hoon: The difficulty I have with my hon. Friend's observations is that they take no account of the appalling terrorist attacks that are occurring throughout Iraq and affecting the Iraqi people more than anyone else. While I can subscribe to many of the principles that my hon. Friend has enunciated—we certainly do not want to target civilians, and in any event we are not allowed to do so legally—it is important for her to bring to the House not only the criticisms that she makes in such an articulate way, but some suggestions as to what we should do to deal with the terrorist threat that exists in Iraq today.

James Gray: Given the record-breaking speed with which the military and political decision-making machine operated this week—and, indeed, the incredibly short time that the recce group has had in which to reconnoitre the operation in Iraq—what guarantee can the Secretary of State give us that the same will not happen in future? There will be a request from the Americans for our troops to operate somewhere else, there will be a record-breaking decision to allow that, and we will end up with the severe mission creep mentioned by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that that is a likely outcome of this decision, which is a specific decision, limited in time and space, to deal with a particular problem arising from potential operations in places such as Falluja. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there are plenty of opportunities for Members to question Defence Ministers on deployments of this sort. There will be one later this afternoon, and another on Monday. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take every opportunity that is presented.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I have received calls on this issue over the weekend from constituency party members and from members of the public. We went into something of a tailspin over the weekend, with all the furore in the press. Ultimately, however, if this action is necessary, it is necessary; and if it is right, it is right. If the Black Watch have a pivotal role to play in securing the future democracy of Iraq and the holding of elections in January, we should praise that role, let them go in there and get on with the task, and get them home to their families in time for Christmas.

Geoff Hoon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Bob Russell: I assume that the Secretary of State has forward planning. On the assumption that the Black Watch come home for Christmas and that the Iraqi elections are in January, will there be any British troops in Iraq by Christmas 2005? Will any of them be from the Colchester garrison? Bearing it in mind that I represent the garrison town of Colchester and that I am proud of the troops I represent, will the Secretary of State reflect on whether his criticism that I did not back British troops was fair?

Geoff Hoon: I invite the hon. Gentleman to think through the policy of the party that I assume he continues to support. That policy is to say that the Liberal Democrats would not have deployed British troops to Iraq. I am not at all sure what the hon. Gentleman actually supports, although I am willing to give him the opportunity to explain that during the debate that will follow this statement. Does he support taking robust action to deal with terrorism? Does he support the deployment of British forces to achieve that? None of those questions has been properly answered by his leader or, if I may say so, by him.

Richard Burden: In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that it was important to see events in the British sector in the context of what is happening in Iraq as a whole. I put it to him that it is also important to see the impact on the broader region of events in Iraq as a whole. He will be aware that there is massive disquiet in the middle east not only about the events leading to the overthrow of Saddam but about America's approach to winning the peace. Is he also aware that concern about Britain's closeness to the United States has so far been tempered by an awareness that we understand things a bit better and have a rather more sensitive approach than that of the United States? Does he understand that this deployment will undermine that distinction in the middle east, and that that will undermine our ability to be a force for good and for sanity in that part of the world, particularly given that our priorities on issues such as the middle east peace process do not seem to be shared by our allies on the other side of the Atlantic?

Geoff Hoon: Since I first became a junior Minister under my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), with responsibility for affairs in the middle east, I have been a regular visitor to the region. During that time, I have not had a single conversation with any middle eastern leader or senior figure who has not either looked for or welcomed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Gregory Barker: In the light of the recent wave of kidnappings, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of this controversial new deployment on the personal safety of the remaining British workers operating in Iraq? Does he have a strategy to deal with that impact, and will the Government be changing their advice to those workers?

Geoff Hoon: That is precisely why it is necessary to conduct this kind of operation. For the moment, the personal security of those people is threatened by terrorists operating from places such as Falluja. It is necessary to deal with Falluja, to help to secure the personal status of those people.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend referred in his statement to the training of Iraqi security personnel. I have pressed his colleagues on this point before, because I am anxious to see Britain play a role in raising the standards of such personnel. That will help us to develop a systematic, organised exit strategy from this conflict. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what progress has been made in this regard and give us an assurance that Britain will play a key role in that process?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to link the question of training, reconstruction and the prospect of democratic elections in Iraq to an exit strategy, because that is an exit strategy. The more training we can conduct of police, security forces and the new Iraqi army, the more opportunities there will be for those people to replace units of the British Army and, indeed, of other coalition forces. As I explained in my statement, that is precisely what has happened in al-Amarah, where British forces were constantly confronted by attacks throughout the summer. Now, they have been replaced by significant contingents of the new Iraqi army, and I am pleased to say that the situation there is much calmer.

Christopher Chope: The Prime Minister has said that our troops are still at war in Iraq, but the Secretary of State said in his statement that we were at the end of what he described as "the war-fighting phase". Can he tell us what phase we are in now?

Geoff Hoon: What we are dealing with is clearly a very determined terrorist operation, affecting the Iraqis and our forces right across the country. We need to concentrate our efforts to deal with areas such as Falluja and other cities that have been out of the control of the Iraqi Government. That is the phase that we are in. We have to deal with the threat to innocent civilians and coalition forces by taking robust action against the terrorists, otherwise we would be letting our people down.

Llew Smith: Could the Minister explain to the House why we should believe the reasons that he gives for the deployment of our troops to other parts of Iraq, when he is the very same Minister in the very same Government who continually informed the House that we had to believe them when they told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that it could use in 45 minutes, that it was a threat to the world, and that the war would be legal?

Geoff Hoon: I gave that information to the House in good faith, and the series of inquiries that has investigated those matters has confirmed that that was true.

Robert Smith: In his answer to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), the Secretary of State placed great faith in the accuracy of modern air weapons. However, most of our constituents will still be concerned that, whatever the quality of the weaponry, innocent civilians are being killed in Iraq. There is particular concern when children are killed there. As he has said, what happens in the rest of Iraq affects the sector that British troops are in. He must therefore seriously address the point that the operations to control the insurgency have to be carried out in such a way that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, even if that involves a greater risk to the American forces.

Geoff Hoon: That is precisely the legal rubric under which British forces operate.

Neil Gerrard: It is clear, is it not, that what this is about is the facilitating of a massive American assault on Falluja? Many of us are deeply sceptical about the assurances that civilian casualties will be minimised, because they simply do not fit with what we have seen over the past year from the US forces, or with the number of Iraqi civilian casualties that there have already been. It is impossible to go into a town such as Falluja with bombs and heavy armour without causing casualties among innocent civilians on a significant scale. We will be blamed for that, because of this deployment.

Geoff Hoon: May I adjust one aspect of what my hon. Friend has said? This will be a decision taken by a sovereign Iraqi Government in the interests of the Iraqi people. It is important that my hon. Friend should reflect that in the way in which he approaches these issues.

Vincent Cable: Very approximately, how many insurgents does the Minister believe the coalition is currently fighting? How does he reconcile the estimate, made in April, of about 5,000 with the more recent estimate that about 25,000 had already been captured or killed?

Geoff Hoon: One of the points that I made in response to a series of questions on Monday was that I accept that there is not a solely military solution to the problem of insurgency in Iraq. It is necessary to deal with foreign fighters and the likes of Zarqawi and his supporters in a vigorous way. There are increasing signs, even in places such as Falluja, that the local Sunni population in such cities are sick and tired of the suffering that they are experiencing at the hands of terrorists. I made the point the other day to the Iraqi Vice-President, who was visiting London, that alongside a determined military operation to deal with terrorists, there must also be a political operation to deal with those people who ultimately are citizens of Iraq and who need to participate in a political process and in the restoration of their country.

Andrew MacKinlay: Since last Sunday, on what occasions has the Secretary of State spoken to Donald Rumsfeld or his deputy about the resources and assets available to the United States compared with those of the United Kingdom, where they are located and when they could be deployed in theatre? Can he also share with the House how a proper apportionment of responsibilities is made, commensurate with the scale of our country and our armed forces, compared with those of the United States?

Geoff Hoon: I have not spoken to Donald Rumsfeld this week, but I did spend two days with him last week at a NATO meeting in Romania. During those two days, the request from the United States was not mentioned once.

Defence

[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 465-I, on the Defence White Paper 2003 and the Government's response thereto, HC 1048.
	Minutes of Evidence on Future Capabilities taken before the Defence Committee on 15th September 2004, from Rt Hon Geoffrey Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Defence, Sir Kevin Tebbit KCB CMG, Permanent Under Secretary of State, and General Sir Michael Walker GCB CMB CBE ADC Gen, Chief of Defence Staff, Ministry of Defence, HC 1031-i; and uncorrected oral evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 20th October 2004, from Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup KCB AFC ADC, Chief of the Air Staff, Ministry of Defence, HC 1031-ii on Future Capabilities.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]

Geoff Hoon: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to open today's debate on defence in the world. The British armed forces, and the civil servants who support them, make a huge contribution to international efforts to improve security around the world. More than 9,000 servicemen and women are currently deployed in the Gulf region, and there are significant deployments in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Cyprus.
	It is not just on major operations that our armed forces make a valuable contribution; we also have training teams and advisers providing support to partners and allies across the world. Let us not forget the important contribution that our armed forces make in the Falklands Islands, Gibraltar and Cyprus.
	We owe our armed forces a debt of gratitude, and I know that the House will wish to join me in again paying tribute to the bravery and professionalism of our servicemen and women, and to their contribution to creating a better world. Nowhere is that more evident than in Iraq, where the armed forces are focused on training and supporting the Iraqi security forces. We must continue to help Iraq to develop the necessary capabilities and capacity to be able to protect its security and stability. This is of particular importance in the light of the forthcoming elections in January.
	We know that the Iraqi security forces are enthusiastic, but they require command and leadership training, as well as basic weapons-handling skills. Prime Minister Allawi is aware of that, and he recognises the need to accelerate the process and to deliver results on security and crime. We are committed to supporting him and his Government, which is why the armed forces are providing essential training for the police and the coastal and border defence forces, as well as for the new Iraqi army and air force. Military advisers are also working with our Iraqi partners on a number of national security committees. Based on current planning, all major elements of the Iraqi security forces, particularly those designed for counter-insurgency, will be fully manned, trained and equipped by 1 July 2005. Three battalions of the regular army—about 2,250 personnel—are already operational, and we expect that all 18 battalions, involving about 27,000 personnel, will be in place by February 2005.
	The Iraqi national guard is being trained and expanded to take over guard and patrol duties. Its 40 battalions—consisting of some 36,500 personnel—now have the capability to conduct significant operations. They are routinely undertaking a wide range of duties, such as fixed site security, route and convoy security, patrols, and cordons and checkpoints. In addition, some 89,000 Iraqi police are on duty in Iraq. Altogether, more than 200,000 Iraqis are now providing security in that country.
	While it is clear that we are making good progress, we accept that there is still some way to go. As the Prime Minister stated, however, this is not the time to cut and run; we have made a commitment to the Iraqi people and we are determined to see it through. We will continue to work with the Iraqi Interim Government and with our coalition partners to achieve our common goal of a stable and secure Iraq. It is for that reason that I announced our agreement to the United States' request that United Kingdom land forces operate outside Multi-National Division (South-East) in support of a combined Iraqi-US force. Together, we will work to increase the pressure on, and deal with, those terrorists and insurgents who are trying to prevent the rebuilding of Iraq, and who threaten the holding of free elections in January.

Hugh Robertson: The Secretary of State said in his earlier statement that the UK armoured battle group of the 1st Battalion Black Watch will deploy with supporting units such as medics, signallers and engineers. Will he confirm what armoured assets they will take with them, and whether they will have any air cover from the UK base?

Geoff Hoon: They will deploy with their Warrior equipment.

Hugh Robertson: I had hoped that the Secretary of State would say whether they will take any armoured squadrons and main battle tanks with them, and whether there will be helicopter support.

Geoff Hoon: In fact, I answered the hon. Gentleman's question precisely.

Hugh Robertson: Will it be Warriors?

Geoff Hoon: They will take their Warrior equipment with them.
	There also remains much to do in Afghanistan. The very successful presidential elections show that the foundations are now in place for the country to be peaceful, stable, democratic and free from terrorism. Some 880 personnel from the Army and the Royal Air Force are deployed in Afghanistan. Most serve with the international security assistance force, helping to maintain stability in Kabul, or serving with provincial reconstruction teams in northern Afghanistan to help the Afghan Transitional Authority progressively extend its reach across the country.
	The Afghan presidential elections on 9 October are proof of how much the Afghan people have achieved since the Taliban fell. Our armed forces played their full part in making that success possible. The British contingent in Kabul increased its patrolling over the election period, and it patrolled continuously for the two days immediately before the poll. Our provincial reconstruction teams provided liaison services to assist in preparation for the elections, while the very visible air patrols of our Harrier GR7s, the deployment of which I announced on 8 September, provided a valuable deterrent effect. Drug production and smuggling, however, remain a significant problem. They finance instability, distort the Afghan economy and are a direct cause of huge misery in Afghanistan and, of course, in this country. We will continue to play our full part in efforts to control the drugs trade. Similarly, the remnants of the Taliban still pose a threat, which is another reason for our deployment of Harrier GR7s in support of the coalition.

Dai Havard: As my right hon. Friend knows, I recently spent a week with the British troops in Afghanistan. I wrote to him about the significant contribution that they are making to training the Afghan national army and raised the question of the resources available for such training, which is valuable in helping Afghans to rebuild their country, and for policing. Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to reconsider this matter, and can he say what those resources, which will be needed for quite a long time, will be?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations and assistance. This matter is being looked at carefully, and although I do not intend to make an announcement today about the results of such inquiries, I can certainly say that we are committed to ensuring that the necessary resources in Afghanistan are provided to deal with the drugs threat.
	Looking ahead, we are committed to the deployment of the headquarters of the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, to lead the international security assistance force in 2006. That is a clear demonstration of our longer-term strategic commitment to the security of the region, and to the Afghan people.

John Greenway: The Green Howards have just returned from a long tour of duty in Afghanistan and they acquitted themselves in exemplary fashion, as the Secretary of State knows. Will he think again about the proposal to abolish one of the regiments in the King's Division, and will he put to an end speculation about the use of RAF Fylingdales, which is in my constituency?

Geoff Hoon: I will deal in due course with the reorganisation of our Army and why it is necessary. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene at an appropriate stage, I shall give way to him and we can discuss the matter further. On Fylingdales, I have explained to the House precisely what has been agreed with the United States. The speculation that I have read in certain newspapers is entirely wrong and misplaced.
	We must not overlook the Balkans, where the political and military landscape has changed dramatically over the past 10 years, not least thanks to the deployment of UK armed forces as part of international peace support efforts. The countries of the Balkans have made huge strides in their aspiration to join the Euro-Atlantic community. NATO has played a vital role in moving the region towards this more stable state, and the United Kingdom has played its part this process. Success can be seen from the fact that NATO force levels in Bosnia have reduced from the original level of 60,000 troops to some 7,000. In Kosovo, NATO troop levels have been reduced from the 1999 figure of 55,000 to 17,500. NATO has decided to terminate its stabilisation force mission in Bosnia. That is the right decision for Bosnia, which is ready to take its next steps toward self-sustaining peace and stability.
	The EU will support Bosnia in taking those steps. The EU mission, which takes over in Bosnia on 2 December, will include a robust military element at initially similar figures to those currently in SFOR. The EU mission will take on the main peace stabilisation role in Bosnia, working in support of the mission implementation plan of the office of High Representative Lord Ashdown. The residual NATO headquarters will concentrate on defence reform and partnership for peace, and will also carry out, together with the EU, certain operational tasks such as support to the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. The UK will lead the first military element of the EU mission and provide the force commander, Major-General David Leakey. The NATO-EU partnership will be good for Bosnia and will help it further along the road towards membership of the EU and NATO.

Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Defence Committee was in Bosnia and Kosovo earlier this year. I would be grateful for his reassurance on one issue that worried us at that time. With the transition in Bosnia from NATO to EU responsibility, can we be absolutely certain that there will be no national caveats that will impair the effectiveness of the force? If difficulties arise in the future, will we be able to deal with them adequately? Can my right hon. Friend also reassure me on the situation in Kosovo, which is still rather worrying? Do we have enough forces in theatre to be able to cope if it erupts again?

Geoff Hoon: I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will have sufficient forces, either in theatre or available at sufficiently short notice—as with recent disturbances in Kosovo—to be on the scene fast enough to make a difference. That has always been an aspect of our approach. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in the Balkans. There is a risk, as I specifically said in my speech, of overlooking the significant progress made in Bosnia. It is crucial for Bosnia to develop for itself the ability to organise its political and military structures in order to take advantage of membership of international organisations.
	The EU mission in Bosnia will be by far the largest military mission under EU leadership. It will also be the most extensive test of the Berlin-plus arrangements agreed at the Nice summit, which provide for the EU to call in NATO assets to sustain its missions. The United Kingdom believes that that mission will be an important milestone in proving the capability of EU defence and security policy that complements rather than competes with NATO.
	However, despite progress, the Balkans region remains volatile, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) said. That was demonstrated by the violence in Kosovo during March this year. We cannot afford to be complacent. NATO and the UK remain determined to ensure peace and stability in that area.

Andrew MacKinlay: Has my right hon. Friend had discussions with the Home Secretary about the intention to withdraw UK police from Kosovo? Many of us are disappointed that the highly valued and highly regarded British police are being withdrawn. It will surely have an impact on the capacity of our armed forces to deliver in that area. Will my right hon. Friend raise that problem as a matter of urgency with the Home Secretary to see whether the decision can be reviewed and reversed?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest. Operations in the Balkans generally, and specifically in Kosovo, require a mixed force of highly trained military forces together with—as far as the policing aspect is concerned—rather more of the gendarmerie than is generally available in the UK. Some of our police officers are trained to use firearms, but that is not the tradition or the generality of our police forces. In the transition from circumstances where military forces are required to those where they are not, the role of the gendarmerie has been key. It may well be that the decision that I have to deal with is the result of other countries being prepared to provide a capability that we do not have in large numbers ourselves. Nevertheless, I will certainly take the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If necessary, I shall write to my hon. Friend in due course.
	The United Kingdom remains fully committed to the NATO over-the-horizon operational reserve force—vital in responding quickly and effectively to the security situation in both Bosnia and Kosovo. The necessity and value of that force and the key part that UK armed forces play was brought into sharp relief during the March violence, when this capability was central to helping to restore calm to Kosovo.
	The range and number of operations on which our armed forces have been engaged in recent years show how much the strategic environment has evolved since the end of the cold war.

Bob Russell: May I ask for the third time—twice on the Floor of the House and once in a written question—in how many countries Her Majesty's armed forces have served during the past year?

Geoff Hoon: A great number.
	The threat from massed ranks behind the iron curtain has been curtailed. In its place are the more disparate but equally challenging threats posed by international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and weak and failing states. Those threats have required us to review the way we plan, prepare and conduct our operations with the focus on delivering flexible forces that are adaptable, rapidly deployable and able to deliver maximum effect, wherever and whenever they are needed.

Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State talked about weapons proliferation, so can I ask him about ballistic missile defence? Has the United States asked the Government any favours in that respect—doing something about that for them—and what has been the Government's response?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend knows, as I said earlier, that we have kept the House regularly informed of our discussions with the US and, indeed, of the decisions that we have taken about the provision of radar facilities at Fylingdales. I can assure my hon. Friend—I have to repeat the point to the House—that recent press speculation is completely unfounded.
	The strategic defence review provided a solid foundation and last year's defence White Paper called for even more flexible and rapidly deployable armed forces—armed forces that make the most of platforms and people across the full range of military effect from peacekeeping to war fighting, and armed forces that complement the skills of other Government Departments and agencies to tackle more effectively the causes of instability in the world.
	Our experience of the types of operation in which we have been engaged since the end of the cold war, together with our assessment of the security environment, show that, on a routine basis, we should plan to support three concurrent operations of small and medium scale, at least one of which is an enduring peace support operation. At those levels, we will maintain a broad spectrum of capabilities to allow our armed forces to conduct limited national operations or, as is more likely to be the case, to enable us to be the lead or framework nation for coalition operations.
	We recognise that our armed forces must, of course, retain the ability to reorganise themselves at longer notice for large-scale operations. At that level, however, we do not judge it sensible to replicate the same spectrum of capabilities, given that, in these most demanding of operations, it is inconceivable that the United States will not be involved, either leading a coalition or as part of NATO.

Crispin Blunt: During the time that the right hon. Gentleman has been Secretary of State for Defence, for how long have UK armed forces sustained that scale of operations? Has it not been rather more than that for most of his time as Defence Secretary?

Geoff Hoon: We have certainly exceeded the anticipated levels of operation that were set out in the strategic defence review. That is why—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree—it is necessary to look into the structure of our armed forces, particularly into the way in which our Army is organised, in order more effectively to manage the responsibilities that UK armed forces have taken on. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that changes are needed.
	As far as NATO and the European spatial development perspective are concerned, we believe that where military action is used, it is most effective when brought to bear through multinational coalitions and alliances. A strong Euro-Atlantic relationship, founded on NATO, remains the basis of the United Kingdom's security policy. The continued strength of the Alliance depends on delivering when and where it matters. NATO must maintain its willingness to react flexibly beyond its borders and to deter and disrupt threats before they reach us. It must keep up the pace of its transformation to ensure that it can provide modern structures and forces that are ready to deliver the right military responses. That means capabilities that harness technology and exploit information to enable us to act quickly, accurately and decisively. It also means improved mechanisms for generating such forces with a strengthened commitment from our allies to providing them.
	Against that background, we are working with our EU partners to improve European military capabilities. As the new constitutional treaty makes explicit for the first time, NATO remains "the foundation" of our collective defence. Our aim is to develop European military forces that enhance NATO as well as the EU. The EU battle groups initiative will establish coherent force packages of very rapidly deployable troops, trained and evaluated to agreed standards. Open and transparent liaison will ensure that those battle groups are fully compatible with the NATO response force and by driving the development of the right capabilities by our EU allies, the battle groups concept will be central to our efforts to manage overstretch. European defence will therefore complement NATO. The EU can bring together a range of crisis management responses—diplomatic, military, civilian, judicial and economic. Its new civilian-military cell is an example of that potential. Such capabilities will fill crucial gaps in the mechanisms now available for handling the current complex security environment.
	Our approach with the UN is similarly multilateralist.

John Smith: On the relationship between NATO and the European rapid reaction force, does my right hon. Friend share my concern that it would be a mistake to duplicate the military headquarters of those forces?

Geoff Hoon: I agree. That is why, in negotiation with our partners and allies, we have sought to avoid any such duplication.
	A principal goal for the EU battle groups concept is to provide European forces for a limited duration in support of the UN. We continue our many programmes to train international peacekeepers. We are loaning officers to assist with the current peacekeeping surge. Another, longer-term aim, is to see the African Union assume most of the burden for African peacekeeping.
	Changes having been identified in the nature of the security environment in which we find ourselves, it is inevitable, and indeed necessary, that there will be a corresponding impact on the size, shape and capabilities that we require of our armed forces. We have a responsibility to our servicemen and women to ensure that they have the right equipment, organisation and supporting structures to enable them to continue to carry out the demanding tasks that we ask of them.
	To do otherwise—to leave our armed forces equipped and structured to counter threats that passed with the passing of the previous century—would mean that we were failing in our duty, and weakening our nation's defence at the very moment when we most need it to be strong and effective. That is why we are introducing the changes that we outlined in the "Future Capabilities" paper, published in July.
	The armed forces themselves, under the direction of the service chiefs, have recognised the need for this change. Our thinking has moved away from assessing military capability only in terms of the numbers of platforms and people towards a new emphasis on the delivery of military effects and outcomes, and the exploitation of the opportunities presented by new technologies such as network-enabled capability. With modern communications and the fusion of intelligence, target acquisition, and precision weaponry, the capability of our armed forces is improving exponentially.
	The 2003 defence White Paper made it clear that the shift in investment towards greater deployability, better targeted action and swifter outcomes would involve a reduction in the numbers of some of our older ships, tanks and aircraft. We have again drawn on our experience of operational commitments since the strategic defence review to identify those parts of the armed forces that are in the highest demand, and those that are less well utilised. As a result, we have developed new plans to ensure that our armed forces can continue to be effective.

Alice Mahon: My right hon. Friend mentioned the defence White Paper, but certain old, tried and trusted regiments—such as the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, now serving in Iraq—are threatened with amalgamation. He will understand that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) have been besieged with letters and petitions containing thousands of names on this matter. The Duke of Wellington's is a good regiment, so will he make sure that he does not mess it up by amalgamating it with something else?

Geoff Hoon: I shall deal specifically with those proposals in due course, but I assure my hon. Friend, and the House, that it is not our intention to mess up anything. [Interruption.]
	We want to develop a highly versatile, expeditionary Royal Navy, with an increased emphasis on delivering military effect on to land at a time and place of our choosing. Our investment in the two new large aircraft carriers deploying the joint strike fighter, and in new amphibious shipping, will contribute to the transformation of our carrier strike capabilities, and provide a step change in our ability to launch and support forces ashore. Together with additional investment in new submarines and the type 45 destroyers, these developments will make the fleet a formidable fighting force for years to come.
	A modernised Royal Air Force will have the capability to maintain air superiority and to deploy forces rapidly worldwide.

Paul Keetch: The Secretary of State mentioned submarines. Will he take this opportunity to pay his condolences publicly to the sailor in the Royal Canadian Navy who was killed recently on a former Royal Navy warship? What investigations are under way with the Royal Canadian Navy to determine the state of those vessels before they left British control?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have already paid proper tribute to the serviceman who died. Coincidentally, I had the privilege of meeting my Canadian counterpart at around the time of the incident, and I paid tribute in public to the Canadian who died. I am aware that the Canadian board of inquiry into the events has opened formally, and the UK will co-operate to the full extent that is relevant to that inquiry.
	The Royal Air Force will be equipped with modern, highly capable, multi-role fast jet aircraft that are able to deliver the offensive and defensive capabilities currently delivered by single-role aircraft. The RAF will increasingly be able to exploit network capabilities, and it will be equipped with a range of modern, stand-off weapons.
	The rebalancing of the Army, however, has attracted the greatest interest. Let me repeat the rationale for making the changes that we propose.

Llew Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Geoff Hoon: On this subject?

Llew Smith: On the Royal Air Force.

Geoff Hoon: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Llew Smith: My right hon. Friend referred to future weaponry, and how it will be used. Will he say a little more on the subject, with particular reference to the future role of Trident? In particular, under what circumstances would he agree to its use?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend knows full well that no defence Minister ever answer questions such as that. One of the reasons for having Trident is its deterrent effect. To answer such questions would be to give away an important aspect of deterrence. We do not intend to do that.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Kevan Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Geoff Hoon: If my hon. Friends will forgive me, I was about to deal with a matter—the restructuring of the Army—that has been raised already by at least two hon. Members.
	The restructuring will provide the Army with a better balanced mix of capabilities, from tanks and artillery at the heavy end through to enhanced medium- and light-weight capabilities, to increase the deployability of our land forces. These lighter forces are essential if we are to combine speed of deployment with protection and firepower.
	The key element however is the restructuring of the infantry, made possible by progress towards a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Here, we have been able to reduce by four the number of infantry battalions continuously available for the Province. In practice, the commitment is for 16 battalions, as a result of the requirement to rotate battalions through this task with 24-month tour intervals.
	By reducing the number of infantry battalions by four, the manpower released will be redistributed across the Army, to develop more robust and resilient unit establishments within the infantry and to bolster the most heavily committed specialists, such as logisticians, engineers, signallers and intelligence staff. The phasing out of the historic practice of infantry arms plotting—under which whole units are required to move location and re-role every few years—will also further increase the efficiency and availability of Army resources.
	However, that requires us to move individuals between battalions for career development, and to increase breadth of experience. In order to preserve the regimental system and the unquestioned value that it brings, that argues for a future infantry structure based on large regiments of two or more battalions. Those who support the end of arms plotting—and from time to time I hear from people who do—must explain how they would do it if they were not to adopt the approach that we have proposed. On that matter, I have heard nothing at all from Opposition Front-Bench Members.

Mark Francois: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Iain Luke: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Geoff Hoon: In a moment. Since the White Paper's publication last year, the phrase that I have heard most from civilians pontificating about it is the importance of having "boots on the ground". They are right, of course, but the changes that we are introducing will ensure that we have more forces available for operations, while at the same time reducing the burden of operational commitments for both our people and their families.
	The changes will mean a new structure for the infantry. We will preserve the strengths of the regimental system, at the same time as providing a more modern structure. The service chiefs and I are determined that the Army should be a modern organisation, capable of adapting to the challenges of the future.

Mark Francois: It is surely a mistake to reduce the Regular Army by four infantry battalions. When people ask for British troops to be deployed around the world, it is primarily an infantry battalion that they ask for. Is it not significant that the US—the most powerful military power on earth—asked for an infantry battalion when it needed reinforcements? The request was not for signallers or logisticians: it was for British infantry. If the US Army recognises the importance of British infantry battalions, why does not the MOD?

Geoff Hoon: Because, as I said in my earlier statement, we will also be deploying signallers and logisticians to support the infantry that we supply. The hon. Gentleman generally approaches these matters thoughtfully and with an open mind. I invite him to consider the issue that the Government have faced, which is no different from the issue that a previous, Conservative Government faced. In fact, we have reached the same conclusion: if we want to deploy in several operations around the world, the key enablers of those deployments are the people we have been discussing—signallers, logisticians, engineers and intelligence personnel. Those are the people who have been most stretched during recent operations.
	One answer—I hear it sometimes from Opposition Front Benchers—is that we should not take on so many operations. When I ask which operations we should refuse to take on, I am usually met with silence. Assuming that we have to take on the operations, we have to provide the right support. The Army recognises that we need to augment the people who are most stretched, and we can do that only by using our existing resources more efficiently.
	If an opportunity is created by a draw-down in Northern Ireland to improve the balance of our Army, it is sensible to take it, rather than to consider the issue in terms of boots on the ground or regimental history. We must ask what is best for the current structure of the Army, what is best for the future and how we achieve those requirements. We have reached the same answer as the Conservative Government did in "Options for Change"—a reduction in the number of infantry battalions, but an increase in the number of enablers. That is all that we are doing.

Mark Francois: I thank the Secretary of State for allowing me a second bite at the cherry. The mistake that he makes is to assume that it is a zero-sum game and that the Army has to be a fixed size, and that therefore, he has to rebalance between infantry and supporting arms. In fact, the way to solve the problem—although it would not be easy—would be to retain those four battalions and address directly the retention issues that cause people to leave the regular Army. If fewer people left, we would have sufficient soldiers to retain the four regular battalions and provide the extra logistic units that we need. That is the way to solve the problem. The Secretary of State knows that I and many of my hon. Friends have been talking about the importance of retention for many years. His approach would be a mistake.

Geoff Hoon: We are directing our attention to the question of retention, which is an important issue. We have also been remarkably successful recently in recruitment, so that the Army has grown. However, we have to plan not only for this year and next, but for the strategic environment that we have to face for decades to come. That means having the right kinds of structures. For example, the armed forces are facing up to a significant demographic change. They have to recruit competitively among a reducing number of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds and that inevitably means that they have to consider the right mix. We also need to provide our forces with the right training and capabilities to equip them for the job that they do for us today and for opportunities in the future in the civilian job market. The kinds of skills and capabilities that I am describing, such as those associated with technology and modern forms of communication, mean that our people are highly prized when they leave the armed forces for civilian employment.

Iain Luke: My right hon. Friend mentioned the issue of larger regiments. In Scotland, the changes would mean a super-large regiment, with five or six Scottish regiments—depending on the conclusions of the review of the colonels—joining into one organisation. What is the benefit of that compared with the traditional structure: a Scottish division with six regiments that could keep their local and national identities, which are so closely identified with the national spirit of Scotland?

Geoff Hoon: There is a simple, short and—I hope—compelling answer to my hon. Friend's question. We intend to end arms plotting, which is the traditional practice of moving regiments around the country, so that every two years entire regiments, together with their families, are required to move, sometimes from one end of the country to the other and sometimes to re-role—to train for many months—which means that they are no longer available. What we are proposing will provide much greater stability. My hon. Friend rightly values the local connection and our proposals will provide a much better local connection with the new, larger regiments. They will have to be larger, because a single battalion regiment would be fixed in a single place, without the opportunity for career development and change that a larger structure will provide.
	I hope that my hon. Friend is persuaded by that argument, because it will be of huge benefit to the men and women who serve, as well as their families. If he is not, I should point out that the new structure is the existing structure of large parts of the present Army. We have already moved to a larger regiment structure. Indeed, that was proposed by the Conservative Government, who unfortunately did not see it through. I suspect that they were afraid of complaints from their older and bolder Members in the Tory shires. The Army strongly supports the new structure and the Army Board recommends it. It will be in the interests of those who serve, and we would fail in our duty if we did not take advantage of this opportunity.

Michael Moore: The Secretary of State has been generous in giving way and I am grateful to him. Will he accept that there is cross-party opposition to the disbandment of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the Royal Scots and the other Scottish regiments? We now learn that the Scottish council of colonels has recommended not only that they should lose their regimental status, but that the KSOB and the Royal Scots should be further amalgamated into a single battalion. Will the Secretary of State accept the importance of tradition and identity and quash that ludicrous idea?

Geoff Hoon: I talked this issue through with the hon. Gentleman and he has always approached it in a considerate and thoughtful way. I assure him that what we seek to achieve through the changes will not have an impact on the identity of those single battalion regiments. We are looking to find ways to preserve the history and tradition within the context of a modernised Army structure. I am determined to see that happen as a result of that process.

John Greenway: I am listening very carefully to the Secretary of State's remarks, and I have two comments to make. First, the historic link between some of the regiments and their local communities is hugely valuable to the British Army. I asked the Prime Minister a question a few weeks and I was able to point out that many people believe that those links are what make the British Army the envy of the world, especially in its peacekeeping role. Secondly, the Secretary of State's answers today seem to suggest that he has made up his mind. When will he make a formal announcement about what is to happen, to end the speculation? Can we be certain that we will retain the three Yorkshire cap badges that we now have?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well and rightly emphasises the historic connections between regiments and local communities. However, under arms plotting, regiments are not necessarily based in their historic localities. Part of the new structure will allow predictability for families. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) mentioned retention, but one of the most damaging influences on retention, especially for modern families, is the practice of moving every two years. These days, wives—it is mostly wives—have jobs and children go to local schools. Families have all sorts of connections with their communities. It is incredibly damaging to retention to require families to move every two years because of arms plotting. These proposals will overcome that, and the regional structure that might then develop will strengthen the local connection that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) praises. It will also provide a greater degree of predictability for the families who, instead of having to move every two years, will be able to establish roots in an area. I hope that that will provide enormous benefits and is a sufficient explanation.

Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Crispin Blunt: rose—

Geoff Hoon: I really must make progress. I have given way a lot, including to the hon. Gentleman already.
	Some of the changes have been made possible by the significant steps that we have made towards greater efficiency in the delivery of logistics support and the modernisation of infrastructure. We plan to accelerate the process in the years ahead. Efficiency savings of £2.8 billion are included in our plans. All that money will be recycled to support the delivery of frontline effects. The Government are investing more money in defence. The defence budget will increase by £3.7 billion over the next three years—an average annual growth of 1.4 per cent. in real terms. This represents the largest sustained growth in defence spending for more than 20 years.
	It is that sustained investment that makes possible the modernisation of the armed forces to which we are committed.
	Our servicemen and women rightly have a reputation that is second to none. They are a force for good in the world. They are currently supporting the Iraqi and Afghan peoples in building a new and democratic future, having helped them to throw off the shackles of brutal, tyrannical regimes. Our servicemen and women continue to safeguard peace in the Balkans, as they have for 10 years or more.
	The security challenges that confront us in the 21st century are very different from those that moulded the size and shape of our armed forces in the past century. International terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the consequences of weak and failing states will require that our armed forces deploy rapidly throughout the world on a wide range of operations. The key to that will be flexibility—of our people, our equipment and our structures.
	The changes that the Government are introducing will ensure that our armed forces are best placed to rise to the challenges posed by this changing world.

Nicholas Soames: First, I thank the Secretary of State and sympathise with him, as he must have had a rough week. He has taken important decisions.
	On the Secretary of State's points about the great single regiments—the infantry regiments—I hope that he truly understands the links between those regiments; indeed, he must, because the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters recruit in his area. It is interesting that the Black Watch, which is to take part in a major deployment outside its area, has 265 years of loyal service to the Crown, and the impact on the regiment of the changes that have been announced has been an unhappy one—deeply imbued as it is with a sense of its identity, traditions and ethos. That point cannot be overstated.
	It is impossible to start any speech on defence without paying the warmest possible tribute to the armed forces. They will be receiving many such tributes today, from both sides of the House, made with equal, obvious and true sincerity. Our armed forces are deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, the Falkland Islands, Cyprus, Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and we salute their professionalism, courage and fortitude. To their families, of whom so much is being asked these days, and who keep the home fires burning, thus doing an irreplaceable job, we send our warmest good wishes.
	Britain has a unique place and role in the world. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the leading European member of NATO, a leading member of the European Union and of the group of the eight most powerful economies in the world. We sit at the beating heart and centre of the Commonwealth. Ours is the fourth largest economy in the world.
	As a great trading nation, we have global, commercial and strategic interests to protect. That clearly gives us important responsibilities, opportunities and, perhaps, a slightly different view of the world from some of our partners and allies. It is very much in our national interest to be prepared to play an important part in confronting threats to global peace and stability, whether they come from unstable regimes, rogue states, international terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.
	Those threats should not be considered in isolation, as separate entities and unrelated challenges. A rogue state may support international terrorism. A terrorist could seek to obtain illegal weapons of mass destruction and would, given the opportunity, certainly use them. The role of our armed forces in projecting power and defending our values is beyond price and is perhaps the most golden and valuable asset that our country holds in trust. It is against that scenario that the armed forces have to plan and operate.
	Indeed, the Government accept that, over the past seven years, the definition and range of Britain's interests has widened beyond even that foretold in the strategic defence review, as the Secretary of State regularly says, and as a result, the military tasks demanded of our armed forces have become more and more intensive. Thus, certain proposals in the future capabilities paper seem quite astonishing.
	The recent defence White Paper represents a shift away from an emphasis on numbers of platforms, as the Secretary of State said, and of people to a new emphasis on effects and outcomes—nobody can say that is not important—and exploitation of the opportunities presented by new technologies and network-enabled capability. Its central theme is rebalancing and transformation. We recognise the importance of both. However, what is sometimes defined as America's new way of war, which includes such concepts as effects-based operations and network-centric warfare, should not be allowed to cloud the fact that although new technologies can certainly be crucial assets at a tactical level, they must not be confused with ensuring that our armed forces have sufficient manpower and equipment to carry out their tasks.
	It is our judgment that the Government are moving away from the proper balance required between manpower and technology. The Secretary of State's theory, expounded in his statement in July, that measuring capability in our armed forces by the number of units or platforms in their possession will no longer be significant—a statement he has broadly repeated this afternoon—is plain wrong.

Jeremy Corbyn: The next Parliament will be faced with the question of the future of Trident nuclear missiles and their replacement. Next summer, the non-proliferation treaty review conference will take place in New York. What is the view of the Conservative party on the replacement of Trident or on making a statement about nuclear disarmament to the NPT conference as a way of bringing about global nuclear disarmament?

Nicholas Soames: The hon. Gentleman can forget the latter proposition. Looking at the future, it is unlikely that Britain would not wish to retain some form of independent nuclear deterrent. That heavy decision will fall on the present Administration. Important decisions will have to be taken over the next year or two as to how they will handle that matter and we shall follow it with interest.

Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if nuclear weapons are a deterrent, they must by definition deter, and that they can do so only if the so-called enemy believes that we are actually going to use them? In what circumstances would he be willing to press the nuclear button?

Nicholas Soames: The hon. Gentleman will have to acknowledge the fact—although he will not want to—that Britain's independent nuclear deterrent has served us, and the world, extremely well.
	So, ladies and gentlemen—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear".] I cannot for the life of me remember which Conservative branch I am addressing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I can tell you one thing—they will be getting the same speech.
	As I was saying, I find myself in profound but respectful disagreement with the Secretary of State on the question of numbers. Despite the Treasury's insistence, numbers remain, in my view, the crucial issue. Which plane, which ship or which brigade can be in two places at once?

Pete Wishart: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify something for me? When the Leader of the Opposition said during the Conservative party conference that he would definitely reverse any decision to cut a Scottish regiment, was he correct? The very next day, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said on BBC radio that such a reverse could not take place. Who was correct?

Nicholas Soames: As is so often the case when something concerns the leader of one's party, we are both correct. What I said and what my right hon. and learned Friend clearly said, too, was that when we come to power next May we will undo the deplorable proposals to amalgamate the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots, and we will ensure that the four regiments of the line are not disbanded. That remains our position.
	If, due to a disappointing judgment by the electorate, we were unfortunately not in a position to undo what had been done, we would not be able to carry that out, but if the amalgamations had not taken place, they would not take place under us. As a matter of recorded fact, it is impossible for a regiment to be un-amalgamated after it has been amalgamated.
	Can the Black Watch really be in both Basra and Iskandariya? Does not the Secretary of State agree that given the astonishing demands that are being made on our armed forces at this time, any reorganisation must be balanced by the retention of a genuine capability to cope with the unexpected, which history teaches us always happens?

Julian Lewis: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the question of platform numbers, does he agree that it is curious that a Government who are emphasising high technology and reducing the number of Type 45 destroyers that they propose to build are nevertheless refusing to put tactical Tomahawk missiles on those destroyers, despite the fact that all our Navy chiefs are unanimous that we need that for force projection purposes?

Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is sad that he is not on the Front Bench with us for such debates and we miss him a great deal. I cannot remember what he asked me, but if it was about Tactom, I agree with him entirely. It would be more than an aspiration for us to get Tomahawk on the new batch of Type 45s because that would create a formidable piece of kit.

Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Soames: No—[Interruption.] Oh, Harry; of course!

Harry Cohen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he confirm that in the awful event of the Conservative party gaining power at the next election and him becoming Secretary of State for Defence, his Department would not contribute anything towards tax cuts?

Nicholas Soames: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman, but he and I have been friends for many years, so in any event I am sure that what he says is nearly right.
	What lessons has the Ministry of Defence learned from the operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and especially Iraq? What lessons has it learned from the excellent work of the Select Committee on Defence? I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who has served on the Committee for a long time and knows the matter inside out. He summed up the feelings of many of us about cuts to the infantry regiment when he asked on the Floor of the House what idiot had dreamt up this plan.
	The Secretary of State should have learned the lesson that numbers matter, especially numbers in the infantry. At a time when there is a considerable danger of terrorism at home and abroad and major military deployments overseas, there can be no military logic or sense in cutting infantry or manpower numbers. It makes no sense to Conservative Members to reduce the number of regular soldiers given that the Army has to be constantly reinforced on operations by an increasing number of our remarkable Territorial Army soldiers—they deserve huge credit, as do their employers. All three services are badly overstretched, and the Secretary of State's proposals can only make matters worse.

Geoff Hoon: I would not want the hon. Gentleman consciously or unconsciously to mislead the House. I made it clear that the manpower of the four infantry battalions will be redistributed in the parts of the Army that are most stretched. I am sure that he did not intend to say that there would be a reduction in numbers, but if he did, he should explain why.

Nicholas Soames: There will be manpower reductions in the infantry under the Secretary of State's proposals. He does not understand—I do not know what it is about his make-up that makes him some sort of desert in this regard—that he might find it slightly tricky to persuade loyal people who have adored their lives as infantrymen to transfer to a different arm.

Geoff Hoon: indicated dissent.

Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would transfer people out of the infantry regiments that he will foolishly cut so that they become logisticians, sappers or intelligence people. He might well find that they will vote with their feet.
	It makes no sense to any of us to reduce numbers at this time. As recently as 7 October, our hyper-interventionist Prime Minister again increased British military commitments by announcing that British troops will form part of a European rapid reaction force to intervene in conflicts in Africa. We look forward to seeing which troops will be sextuple-hatted by taking on that job.
	We are in favour of scrapping the arms plot, and we certainly agree unequivocally that there is a need to rebalance so that we can meet the demands of likely operations. The armed forces need to be made more usable, but they must retain their traditional and irreplaceable skills that make them able to fight the high-intensity battle and revert almost immediately to a peacekeeping role. Reducing the size of the Army is deeply foolish and wholly unwarranted.
	The cuts will undermine not only the Army. The Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Alan West, recently outlined his concerns, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for highlighting these matters to me when he was dealing with the Navy brief. Alan West said:
	"People should be under no illusion . . . with only 25 destroyers and frigates we will be close to the cusp . . . . The reduction in"
	destroyer and frigate
	"numbers will demand a commensurate reduction in commitments to direct tasks."
	The Royal Navy has been bullied into compliance for fear of losing the commitment to build two future aircraft carriers, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales. The professional head of the Royal Navy says that
	"we are taking risk on risk"
	by doing that. I have to tell the Secretary of State that the Government have engaged in a barefaced deception of the British people by falsely claiming that cutting the numbers of ships in the Royal Navy would present no risk.
	The proposed cuts to the Royal Air Force will lead to a smaller RAF that is able to deploy ever fewer aircraft from fewer bases. Rather than making the RAF more expeditionary, which I agree is absolutely necessary, the changes, if implemented, will result in a Royal Air Force with a reduced reach arising from dangerous gaps in essential capabilities. How does that fit with the White Paper proposals to create modern expeditionary forces?
	The Government are destroying our ability to act with any degree of autonomy in a future conflict. They are gambling on us always having allies to fill the gaps in our defences. They are refusing to recognise the unpredictability of future threats and failing to pay the premium on the most important insurance policy that our country can have: the policy that enables us to deter or defeat those dictators and fanatics who wish to do our country harm.
	Given the increasing frequency with which British troops are called upon to engage in military operations, we owe it to them to ensure that they are properly funded, well trained and fully equipped. However, with all the operations that the armed forces are undertaking and with all the deployments required of them, they are today significantly undermanned, severely overstretched and underfunded.
	I shall now turn to funding. I know that the Secretary of State finds the concept of expenditure difficult to understand and a good deal harder to explain. I know that he has had the most profound differences with those in the Treasury—he should not worry about that; they work for the Russians. It is right to put on record my party's spending plans on defence. Under my agreement with the shadow Chancellor and the leader of my party—I am grateful to both for their understanding and support—the next Conservative Government will spend £2.7 billion more on front-line defence than this Government.
	The £2.7 billion is made up of £1.1 billion of the cash released by efficiency savings from other Government Departments and £1.6 billion of cash savings from out-sourcing and procurement activities within the Ministry of Defence. Those plans will result in extra cash expenditure of £441 million in 2006–07, £631 million in 2007–08 and enough to allow the reversal of the most debilitating and foolish of this Government's cuts.
	The number of operational tours that soldiers are now expected to carry out has had a serious impact on training. That, together with overstretch and undermanning could lead and will lead sooner or later to serious problems in all three services. I should be grateful if the Minister of State, who takes these matters seriously, would tell the House what plans he has to restore the training programme so that the tempo of training, which has enabled our servicemen to perform so well is not in any way diminished.
	Both the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence have been severely criticised by the Defence Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office for persistently ignoring the lessons learned in previous operations and for unforgivably failing to address serious shortcomings in equipment, procurement and logistics. In particular, the Secretary of State stands guilty of not ensuring that personnel received the equipment that they needed on operations, including in Iraq desert boots and combat gear, flak jackets and, most shamefully given the threat, adequate chemical and biological protection equipment and other critical items. When will the Secretary of State introduce an asset tracking system and what plans has he to improve the performance of the Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Procurement Agency? What plans does he further have to deal with the astonishing waste reported in his annual accounts?
	Throughout 2002, the Secretary of State blocked all debate about the possible upgrading of the missile tracking station at Royal Air Force Fylingdales, claiming that no request for upgrading had been received from the US Defence Secretary. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his help and guidance on the matter. Only when the Secretary of State had received that request did he agree to discuss it, but as with this week's announcement in respect of the US request to provide a battle group to reinforce US forces, the Government's response was of course a foregone conclusion. At the time, he said:
	"Mr. Rumsfeld's letter contains the undertaking that, if Fylingdales were to be upgraded, and should we desire it, then the US would be prepared to extend missile defence coverage and make missile defence capabilities available to the UK as the evolution of the US system permits, subject to agreement on appropriate political and financial arrangements."—[Official Report, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 46WS.]
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) in this very debate in January last year specifically raised the question of missile interceptors, seeking to establish whether the Government were prepared to agree to those being stationed on UK soil. The answer was no; that it was too early to discuss the issue. Well, if weekend press reports are correct, the issue is now being actively discussed between London and Washington. We ask the Secretary of State to come clean and tell us where the Government stand. Are they in favour of interceptors being stationed on UK soil or not? If not, why not? If so, what is the state of the negotiations?
	It is perhaps a complete coincidence that on Tuesday this week the Secretary of State placed in the Library of the House an annexe on research, development, test and evaluation of ballistic missile defence capabilities and systems to a US-UK memorandum of understanding dated 12 June 2003 regarding ballistic missile defence. It is a cracking good document and I suggest that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) hurry along there and read it.

John Greenway: My hon. Friend mentioned Tuesday. On Tuesday this week the North York Moors national park committee received a letter from an official at the Ministry of Defence saying that there were no plans whatever to use RAF Fylingdales for any purpose other than as an early warning radar station. I visited the station a few weeks ago and I can tell my hon. Friend that the work to upgrade the existing radar, which the Secretary of State knows that I support, is well under way. What was in the Sunday press will have come as a surprise to the committee.
	Does my hon. Friend not think that, given the Government's record on Fylingdales, people are bound to be suspicious? We have heard what the Secretary of State has said today, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should go much further?

Nicholas Soames: I most certainly do. My hon. Friend is right. It is an important test of trust and credibility. It is wrong on such an important issue for the Secretary of State not to make his view clear to the House. All of us can hope that the Minister of State will wish to do so in the wind-up.
	In December 2002, the Secretary of State told the House:
	"I believe that this represents an important industrial and technological opportunity for the UK".—[Official Report, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 46–47WS.]
	In that context, what is the significance of the memorandum of understanding that he has recently placed in the Library? Our view is clear. The British people remain unprotected from missile attack. There are rogue states developing such missiles. We therefore believe that the UK should work closely with the United States to enable us to share in that protection. What is the Secretary of State's view?

Paul Keetch: The shadow Secretary of State is rightly asking the Government a number of important questions and I, too, hope that we will get some answers. Perhaps he could state the Conservative party's position. Would he accept the stationing of US interceptors on British soil in Mid-Sussex or anywhere else, assuming that those interceptors were designed to prevent an attack on the American homeland but would not cover the British homeland?

Nicholas Soames: There would clearly be no question of their going to Mid-Sussex, not least because we have a major international airport just outside and it might not be a desperately good idea for time-keeping. This is a serious matter. Our view—my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has made it plain—is that we need to know what the options are. We are not party to these things any more than the hon. Gentleman is. These are important decisions. Quite apart from the knockaround of party politics, these are fundamental decisions, as are the onerous decisions that the Secretary of State will shortly have to take on Trident. We are entitled to know, and certainly the constituents of my hon. Friend are entitled to know, what is the Government's intention, what is involved in the MOU and how the Secretary of State intends to move it forward.

John Greenway: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is an important matter. He refers to party political knockaround. I can tell him that the Liberal Democrats on North Yorkshire county council have tabled a motion for their meeting next week, and doubtless the matter will be discussed. That is why we want to get as much information as we can ahead of that meeting. People are genuinely concerned across all parties.
	Does my hon. Friend agree personally that it would be sheer lunacy to locate missiles and radar on the same base? Ought we not to consider, if we need antiballistic missiles, siting them at sea rather than on the mainland?

Nicholas Soames: I have always subscribed to the saying that one should not put all one's baskets in one egg. It is unlikely that that would be a sensible view. My view of the Liberal Democrats is that they are always tabling motions. If I were my hon. Friend, I would not tangle with the people on the North York Moors national park committee. I think they know what they are talking about. The stand that my hon. Friend is taking is correct. People are entitled to know what is involved, what decisions need to be taken and what the implications are for them.
	I shall turn to NATO and the European Union and then I will stop banging on; I apologise for taking so long. I have often expressed in the House my concerns about NATO and our anxieties for it. We attach huge importance to it, as does the Secretary of State. It is an alliance that needs revitalising in the face of threats to all the democracies, but for the life of me I cannot see how the political, material and intellectual effort being put into separate defence structures within the European Union and outside NATO contributes to that process. Furthermore, the EU is now preparing to take over the main military responsibilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina from NATO by the end of 2004. That will create no additional or different military capabilities.
	Indeed, some forces in Bosnia will remain under NATO command. The overall commander of the EU mission is NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe; the over-the-horizon back-up forces will be NATO's. NATO retains the responsibility for Kosovo. What added value do complicated military arrangements, which are designed purely to involve the EU, bring to the situation? Do not they further deeply complicate an already difficult problem?
	In Brussels, the EU has established its military staff with a developing operational planning capability. That has led to the creation of NATO liaison arrangements in the EU military staff and a complementary EU presence at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. That is a circular and, in our view, inadvisable and unnecessary process. What is the justification for the institutional tangle? After all, all soldiers and anyone to do with military operations know that simplicity must be the key. NATO struggled to find extra troops to provide security in the recent elections in Afghanistan and eventually fell short of its target.
	Six months ago, NATO seriously contemplated taking overall responsibility for military operations in Iraq but it has ended up sending a small number of soldiers on a training mission. Are not the Government truly concerned that, while the EU defence project gathers momentum, many European allies remain unwilling to enhance their defence capabilities? They show reluctance to engage in robust military operations and appear to have diminishing enthusiasm for the NATO alliance.

Geoff Hoon: I believe that the hon. Gentleman was a Minister when his Prime Minister, John Major, signed the Maastricht treaty, which contained a specific provision that called for the development of an EU defence policy. Did he support the policy at the time or did he have his fingers crossed?

Nicholas Soames: I believe that we all signed up to the policy; the wiring diagram presents the problem. The Secretary of State knows that well because he is at the centre of the matter. He is a good European and he wants to do the right thing by NATO and the EU, as I do. We are not currently doing the right thing by either of them. We must put that right. The complications of confusing EU and NATO operations are serious. There are, of course, honourable exceptions, but are not the Government worried about the EU's diversion of attention from the genuine security problems that it faces?
	There is so much to cover. The debate is about defence in the world and we have not covered the whole subject. However, all of us who have anything to do with the armed forces and the happy band who turn up for defence debates know that it is a huge privilege to participate. Hon. Members of all parties derive immense pride from that. I look forward to the day when we hold many more such debates.
	As we said earlier, I hope that the deployments that are about to occur will be attended by success and safety. I am sure that hon. Members will again join me in wishing the Black Watch well.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Bruce George: As a Welshman, I find 10 minutes rather restrictive, especially when I hear Opposition Members' comments. They make me more inclined to be aggressive, but I shall try hard to resist.
	I am delighted that the Defence Committee report has been tagged on to the debate. We are discussing defence, which is the responsibility not only of the Ministry of Defence. Joined-up government is supposed to mean, and largely does mean, the involvement of a whole spectrum of Departments, and even policing and the private sector in considering acts of terrorism.
	It is inevitable that the debate will be dominated by Iraq. The decision to deploy is clearly important and has excited a great deal of comment. The Defence Committee has invited the Secretary of State to give evidence. I hope that that will happen soon and that he will elucidate the Government's intentions even further. I say in advance that I am persuaded of the argument for deploying troops but I would have been nervous if our troops were to be deployed with the Americans in attacking Falluja.
	Many people have argued over the years that the Americans are never prepared to take casualties, yet they have taken more than 1,000. We who say that Britain is prepared to take casualties and that our troops are superior now argue that we should not put our soldiers in harm's way. Perhaps we can try to accept that being in the Army is a dangerous occupation. We must not throw people needlessly into an environment that replicates the Somme; that has not happened. The position in Baghdad clearly will be more complicated and dangerous than Basra province, but the decision was made because it was necessary.
	In deploying our forces, we should ensure that they have the proper training and proper support from the United States. I suspect that there is no "A to Z" of Basra, or, indeed, any city in Iraq. Since the soldiers do not know their way around and are in a new environment, they will need support. I want them to be well prepared and politics should not insist that they are projected north immediately. There must be proper preparation because they are not, as some might argue, undertaking the same operation in another area. The operation is different and we must do all that we can—I am sure that the Ministry of Defence and the military leadership will do that—to reduce the risk to our armed forces as far as is humanly, militarily and politically possible.
	Like many hon. Members, I have attended the funerals of young men who have been killed and it is not a pleasant experience. The armed forces' support for families is extraordinary. We do not want such funerals but our armed forces have an objective to assist in the evolution of a new and democratic Iraq. Although people objected to the initial deployment—I supported the Government in that—there is now a new environment. We are now supporting the evolution of a different sort of society.
	I do not like people who deprecate the Liberal Democrats because they did not support the war. They want our armed forces to be retained in Basra. I rejoice in the Liberal Democrats' support for British armed forces anywhere in the region. That is a step forward and I am happy with that limited support.
	Those who are prepared for our armed forces to be deployed further north in an environment of greater risk will have a nervous few months. It is argued that the decision is a military matter. It is, but we fought hard in this country to secure civilian control over the military and we have done that. The idea that the military make decisions is fantasy. They can advise but, ultimately, a politician—the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister or a Cabinet Committee—rejects or accepts the recommendation. We should be honest and say that it is a political-military decision because the military cannot operate in a political vacuum. Their role is to deliver the military contribution to wider, cross-governmental strategy, to paraphrase the defence White Paper.
	It is fair to say that the military advice was strong. We need to send a small force, and the troops chosen are well trained and highly motivated. Members of the Black Watch are among the best troops in the British Army and probably any army. Our best wishes must go to our armed forces, any of the alliance armed forces and the Iraqi people, who are facing appalling dangers in the present environment.
	The defence White Paper does not seem lengthy, but it is a good document. The Defence Committee produced a report that has been tagged to the debate, and generally speaking, we agree with most of the White Paper. I like the threat assessment, which is realistic. Perhaps a few things were left out that should have been part of that assessment. The Government are absolutely right in saying how they need to develop our equipment programme. I have one or two comments on procurement to make, perhaps in the next debate on defence. However, the Government are right to try to plan to deal with what warfare will be like in the next decade, rather than thinking about the last war and viewing the next fight as merely an extrapolation of the experienced gained on an earlier occasion, as Governments and the military have tended to do in the past. I am afraid that history reveals that that is not a very sensible way for politicians or the military to proceed.

Crispin Blunt: I have served under the right hon. Gentleman's chairmanship of the Defence Committee, and the document to which I put my name does not quite bear out his suggestion that it is largely supportive of the White Paper, given that it states:
	"We are disappointed that a policy document that could have far reaching implications has been presented with little or no detail . . . We are not convinced that an essentially reactive approach to the defence of the UK homeland is satisfactory . . . We are left wondering whether the Defence White Paper is properly set in the strategic context of Britain's security circumstances".
	Given that it contains those sentences, the right hon. Gentleman is a little over-kind to the Ministry of Defence. Our document merits a better and closer reading than the document that first generated it, the defence White Paper itself.

Bruce George: Yes, I thank the hon. Gentleman. May I say how distressed I am that he has now left the Defence Committee?

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that it would be reasonable to draw the House's attention to the fact that I have not left the Defence Committee. That is a matter for the resolution of the House. Such a motion may be tabled in the next few weeks because of the responsibilities that I have taken up as an Opposition Whip, but that is, of course, a matter for the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair or a point of order.

Bruce George: Which Chair are you referring to, Madam Deputy Speaker? All I can say is that I believe that it is incompatible to be a member of the Whips Office and a member of the Select Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having served on the Committee for some time, will look for pastures new and allow those who can devote all their energies to the Defence Committee to take his place.

Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There were two Parliamentary Private Secretaries—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that the debate is time-limited and that many hope to catch my eye?

Bruce George: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The point that I would make to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is that I was four and a half minutes into my speech and I was about to unfold the other, more critical arguments, but his eagerness and hostility to the Government were so overwhelming that he was not prepared to wait. The idea that I have been nice to Defence Ministers is a matter of amusement to me and, I am sure, to the Minister of State.
	In the Committee report, we considered two themes that run through the White Paper. I shall come later to how the armed forces contribute to the Government's broader political objectives and how the rest of the Government support the armed forces, but I want to consider first how we discharge our responsibilities to equip and resource our armed forces for the task that we expect them to do. I am conscious of the fact that we are debating defence in the world and not procurement, so more about that later.
	We are concerned about the procurement process and the failures in procurement that the National Audit Office regularly details. Its report vindicated what we said a week ago, and I received the full venom of the counter-attack from the Ministry of Defence. We are right to invest in high-tech equipment for the future, but I am a civilian who believes that boots on the ground are absolutely necessary. The Committee truly believes that there is excessive devotion to equipment and the tail of the military. Yes, we need cooks and logisticians, but the idea that we can have an army with about 25,000 infantry given all the commitments that we are obliged to undertake is something that I find weird.
	I will take no advice from the Conservatives on how to cut regiments, having gone through the process of "Options for Change" and written a book on how my regiment—the Staffords—survived the Conservative Government. The idea of merging battalions, whichever Government created the famous M4 regiment of amalgamations, disqualifies anyone who sits on the Conservative Front Bench from pontificating too strongly.
	I can criticise the Government, and I will, but it is disingenuous of the Opposition to do so.
	It is bonkers to eliminate regiments. It must not be done, and surely it is within the wit and the intelligence of the Ministry of Defence to say yes to our request. I sense that the Secretary of State is moving towards retaining a regimental tradition that goes beyond allowing regiments just to produce a magazine and have a cap badge to having something that is identifiably and seriously regimental, within the framework of a broader organisation. If that can be done, some of the criticism will be reduced.

Patrick Mercer: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the outstanding example of the five regiments of foot guards that have served the Crown loyally for 300 years, which will be allowed to retain their identity within the overall formation of the Brigade of Guards? Does he agree that regiments like his and mine, the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment, should be allowed to copy such an example?

Bruce George: I asked the Ministry of Defence to tell me the regiments and the units to which the Army's decision makers belong. I want to be sure that no special favour is given by the great and the good to their regiments. There is no reason why anyone should feel upset. Why bust two battalions in Scotland? They could be added to a Mercian regiment because far more Scots live in England than in Scotland. I do not want any regiment eliminated. It is possible to reach a compromise, and I hope that the Ministry will do that.
	We have done much and there are many things that the Ministry is working towards, much of which I applaud, but people do not have to listen to me to find out what is happening. All they have to do is read the report. If the hon. Member for Reigate does that, he will see that we have been critical, and I remain critical. When I was a given a little—what is it called?—interview without coffee—

Keith Simpson: A bollocking.

Bruce George: Yes, a polite talking to. No names mentioned—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Paul Keetch: It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee. I am sure we will go to bed tonight wondering how his story ended.

Bruce George: I was about to say that it was not my job, or the Committee's job, to make life happy for Ministers. Our job is to call it as it is, not as they would like it or necessarily how we would like it.

Paul Keetch: I am grateful to the Chairman for that.
	I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the members of our armed forces who serve us so well throughout the country and, of course, their families, both at home and abroad. We have heard much about the history of the various Army regiments, but I want to mention something about the Royal Navy.
	Today is Trafalgar day. It is 199 years ago today that the British fleet saw off the French and Spanish fleets off Cape Trafalgar. Today I was privileged to spend time with members of the Trafalgar weekend celebration committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and Bruno Peek, who are planning next year's events to mark the 200th anniversary of that important date in our history.
	I cannot go further without commenting on what the Secretary of State for Defence said in his statement concerning those of us who oppose the war. Although we accept that the Chamber is political, he appeared to be saying that the Liberal Democrats, his right hon. and hon. Friends, a number of Conservative Members and the millions upon millions of people in this country who did not support the war wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power. That is outrageous.
	I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said just a few weeks before the vote that took us into war when he said that Saddam Hussein could stay in power. He said:
	"I detest his regime—I hope most people do—but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step".—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 124.]
	In other words, the Prime Minister accepted just a few weeks before the campaign started that he was prepared for Saddam Hussein to stay in place as leader of that country. I hope that when the Secretary of State reads his remarks in Hansard tomorrow, he chooses to apologise to me, my leader and the millions of people whom he insulted.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Will he confirm that those million-plus people who marched on 15 February last year marched because they did not want to see death and carnage any more in Iraq? They were not in any way supporting the regime of Saddam Hussein. Indeed, many of them and many in the House had actively opposed arms sales to Iraq during the 1980s when the basis of Saddam Hussein's power was created.

Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman is right, but that applies not just to the million people who took to the streets. There were hundreds of people in my constituency, Hereford, which is not known for its pacifist tendency, who also supported the view that war at that stage was not right. The comments of the Secretary of State were outrageous.
	I shall be brief. Although I am not subject to time constraints, I want others to speak. It is clear that the level of insurgency in Iraq is increasing by the day. That underlines what we and others in the House said about the number of troops in Iraq immediately after the so-called victory last May and the number that continue to be there. As the Chairman of the Defence Committee said, we supported the presence of British troops in our sector and we will continue to do so. However, until there are more troops from other nations—not from Britain and America—and particularly from Muslim nations taking part in the policing and patrolling of that country, we will not be able to demonstrate adequately to the people of Iraq that it is not a force of occupation, but a force of liberation designed to help their country succeed.
	That is why the Government and the United States Government have an awesome responsibility to do whatever they can to try and secure troops from other nations. They also have an awesome responsibility, as other hon. Members have said, to conduct operations in Iraq in a sensible way. I draw to the attention of the House a report on the BBC a few hours ago, according to which the symbolic head of the Association of Muslim Scholars said that if an attack on Falluja by the US or others were carried out as many in the House suspect it would be, he would boycott the elections to be held in January.
	I hope that such a boycott will not happen. I hope that the elections will be successful because they are essential for building a prosperous and democratic Iraq, to which we all sign up. In the attack on Falluja it behoves US forces to act in such a way as to minimise civilian casualties as far as possible, as we would do with our forces. We must ensure that the Americans try to do that as well.
	There has been huge cross-party support for the action in Afghanistan. Few in the House objected to it. The Taliban regime had to be removed and military action was necessary. One of my concerns about going into Iraq was that we had not sorted out Afghanistan before we did so. Now drug production levels in Afghanistan are higher than when the Taliban were in power. Of course, Britain is doing its bit and the deployment of more GR7 Harriers mentioned by the Secretary of State is to be welcomed, but we must ensure that that society is stable before we engage in other activities among other nations.
	I find it astonishing that because of their domestic legislation, some NATO troops stationed in Afghanistan will not take part in activities to destroy drug fields in an attempt to stop the drug trade. Those NATO members—they know who they are—should look at the internal security of their own nations, which are scourged by drugs. If they are not prepared to do something about the problem in Afghanistan, they need to rethink their policy.

Adam Ingram: I would not usually intervene because I understand the time constraints. However, with reference to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the views of the Liberals on the campaign in Afghanistan, may I remind him of the views expressed by his now hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), who opposed what we were doing in Afghanistan? He left the Labour party and joined the Liberals.

Paul Keetch: The Liberal Democrats are a broad church, but they are not as broad as the Minister's church. Although it is true that individual Liberal Democrat Back Benchers did not support that campaign, Liberal Democrat Front Benchers—me, my leader and my Foreign Affairs spokesman—supported it wholeheartedly. If the Minister wants to see Labour Members who take a different view on Iraq, nuclear weapons or Afghanistan—I could go on—he needs only to look at the Government Benches, where they sit for all to see.

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman made a point about the Liberal Democrat party's view. I accept that my party contains different views on different issues, but he was trying to suggest that the Liberal Democrat party takes a collective view. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) indicated that she supports the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), and we should take a straw poll to see how many other Liberal Democrat Members support him.

Paul Keetch: Of course, three or four Liberal Democrat Members did not support the Afghan campaign, but the majority of the parliamentary party, the majority at our conference and the leadership and spokesmen at that time supported that action. It ill behoves a Labour Minister to criticise members of his own party who do not support individual military actions. The vast majority of Labour party members in Hereford, such as there are, supported me, not him, in the case of Iraq at least.

Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech and holding the attention of the House. While we are on the subject of Liberal Democrat defence policy, what is official Liberal Democrat defence policy on the future of the nuclear deterrent? Is it not right that the Liberals would not replace the strategic nuclear deterrent when Trident becomes obsolete?

Paul Keetch: It is funny that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question because I expected it to come from a Labour Member, but I am happy to deal with it. The Liberal Democrats support the retention of an independent British nuclear deterrent. That does not necessarily commit us to replacing Trident with a submarine-launched deterrent system, because there is an important discussion to be had about the kind of nuclear deterrent that is appropriate for Britain after Trident—personally, I do not think that it is a submarine-launched ballistic missile deterrent. Our policy document, "Defending Democracy", which was produced at the beginning of last year, stated that we retain the principle of an independent British nuclear deterrent.

Llew Smith: Given what the hon. Gentleman just said, can we assume that in certain circumstances he would be willing to press the nuclear button?

Paul Keetch: I will shield myself behind the view taken by successive Ministers. When I sit on the Government Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman can ask me the question and I will tell him under which circumstances I would do so.
	I shall move on to a number of other areas of NATO deployment. I certainly endorse the Secretary of State's remarks about the situation in the Balkans, and particularly in Kosovo. The situation in Kosovo is not secure. We went into Kosovo to stop one part of the population committing genocide against the other. Many of us now suspect that the other part of that population is now similarly committing genocide. NATO forces must be seen to be even-handed in Kosovo, and they must protect both sides of the community. For example, German forces were criticised on the ground that their response to rioting in Mitrovica and other places earlier this year was not even-handed.
	Perhaps the Minister will pay attention to this question about NATO members because I would like him to address it in his winding-up speech. We have a commitment to emerging NATO states. In particular, I draw the Minister's attention to a commitment that the Government do not appear to have fulfilled, which concerns the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. NATO agreed to rotate a flight of three aircraft based at an air base in Lithuania, and the royal Belgian air force took up the commitment with three F-16s. The RAF was supposed to replace that flight, but it told the Lithuanian Government and the other Baltic state Governments that it was unable to do so for operational reasons, so the Danes had to go in. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position in his winding-up speech.
	We have responsibilities throughout the world. Hon. Members have mentioned the Falkland Islands, on which I endorse what has been said, but I shall say a word about our dependent territories in the Caribbean. The Royal Navy's presence in the Caribbean used to be called WIGS—the West Indies guard ship—and some of us who have served on the armed forces parliamentary scheme were lucky enough to spend time there.
	We saw the benefits of a West Indies guard ship only this summer when HMS Richmond, commanded by Mike McCartain, and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Wave Ruler were able to provide extremely important humanitarian help to the people of the Cayman Islands. We have a commitment to those places, and in that instance the Royal Navy was extremely useful.
	The troops in our armed forces are the best kit and equipment that we possess. I entirely endorse what the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence said about the proposed changes to the regimental structure, particularly in Scotland. Of course arms plotting should go, for the good welfare and family reasons for which we have argued for some time. However, that does not necessarily mean having to get rid of the regional identities of many of the regiments that are under threat.
	There is something of an internal crisis among our armed forces personnel. A few months ago, the MOD issued its internal survey for 2004, which asks members of the armed forces what they think of the MOD and their own position. In response to the question, "Does the MOD look after its personnel?", of 1,634 members of the armed forces—a 42 per cent. response rate—only 3 per cent. strongly agreed that the MOD looks after its own personnel, while 32 per cent. somewhat agreed and 62 per cent. did not know, did not care or did not believe it. The MOD needs to resolve that crisis.
	Does the Minister intend to reintroduce manning control? He knows what that is and exactly how it is being used to get rid of members of the armed forces from their positions.
	On Gurkhas, although I welcome the recent announcement that they will have the right of citizenship in this country, why is that being limited to those who have left the service since 1997? They have served this nation very well. They took 23,000 casualties in two world wars. They have won 26 Victoria crosses. Indeed, of the 15 surviving VC holders, four are Gurkhas, yet under the Government's proposals none would qualify for British citizenship. That should be reconsidered.
	The Secretary of State had some fun with Liberal Democrat policies on procurement in his Labour party conference speech, and claimed that the British armed forces should, at all costs and all times, buy British equipment. However, he is not supported by members of his armed forces, who were questioned about that for the MOD survey. When they were asked whether they were well equipped, 19 per cent. thought that they were and 41 per cent. thought that they were not. When they were asked, "Should we always buy British?"—the issue on which the Secretary of State criticised our policies—21 per cent. supported the view of the Secretary of State and 58 per cent. supported the view of the Liberal Democrats.
	We wholeheartedly support the carriers, but they must be considered in terms of the MARS—military afloat reach and sustainability—programme for the replacement of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. Our warship yards cannot cope with the eight to 10 ships in MARS at the same time as the aircraft carriers. Members of Parliament from the north-east—the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) is nodding—know that that is the case.
	I want to ask about ITAR—the international traffic in arms regulations. We hear a lot about the United States being our best friend and trading partner, yet the ITAR waiver that the Government have sought to allow us to export goods to America has not been fully given—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a debate on defence procurement in two weeks' time. This debate is on defence in the world.

Paul Keetch: May I therefore refer to two other areas of defence in the world, Madam Deputy Speaker?
	First, on the question of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, it is clear that a number of states are going down the path of possibly procuring weapons of mass destruction. We need only consider Iran, for example, which has at least a dozen sites working in this field and 11,000 people working in that industry—the same as the Manhattan project, which first developed atomic weapons. There will be no full disclosure to the United Nations: Iran has great missile technology and it has already tested the Shahab 3 to a range of 1,300 km. Unfortunately, it is the view of many of us that the next intention of the United States Government is to move to deal with that problem by military means. I hope that the Minister will confirm in his wind-up that there are no plans for Britain to participate in any US-led strikes on Iran. Can he say whether there have been discussions about that?
	Finally, the real threat to us is international terrorism. Our adventures in Iraq have taken valuable time and resources that could have been used to fight international terrorists. While it is easy to put up a screen as some sort of defence, rather like the Maginot line or the national missile defence programme proposed by the Americans, the reality is that the ongoing campaign against terrorism can only be won in the hearts and minds of the people of this world, and will not be fought primarily through the use of force.

Jenny Tonge: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things that we can do to fight terrorism in the world is to make progress in the middle east peace process?

Paul Keetch: Indeed; I was moving on to that in terms of my reference to the Maginot line.
	One of the other great illusions of current policy is the building of the Israeli wall. I have seen the wall—as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) knows, I visited Israel and Palestine recently—and while I understand that building a wall might somehow make people feel safer, history has proven that building walls gives a false sense of security, as was demonstrated by the Maginot line. Building a wall on other people's land is even more wrong.
	In this nation, we are fortunate to have armed forces who have served us for many years. Those of us who were not privileged enough to serve in the armed forces have always regarded their distinction with pride. Those who have been privileged to serve, such as the shadow Defence Secretary, perhaps know better than some of us about some of their abilities. One thing that we all share, however, whether we have served or not, is a belief that we must do better by our armed forces, as they deserve more of our support.

Iain Wright: As the newest Member of the House, it is a real privilege to make my maiden speech only a matter of days after being presented to the House. I promised my constituents that if elected, I would be their strong representative in Westminster. I cannot do that by sitting silent on these Benches. I am grateful for the warmth and friendliness that Members on both sides of the House have extended to me during these first few days. I feel particularly proud and privileged to represent the town where I was born, where I grew up, and where I am now raising my family.
	Hartlepool has played a strong role in the defence of this country, so it is fitting that my maiden speech is during a debate on defence matters. The Headland, the oldest part of Hartlepool, suffered a bombardment by German warships in December 1914, during which more than 100 people lost their lives. The docks of West Hartlepool built many ships for the Royal Navy in the first world war. I, like other Members, want to pay tribute to our armed forces who are serving all over the world at present.
	In my lifetime, there have been two great Labour Members of Parliament for Hartlepool. I have the honour of succeeding Peter Mandelson, who put Hartlepool on the political map and who played a major role in the revival of the town, both as a Member of the House and as a member of the Labour Government. To the town, he brought vision, determination and great ability. Working with a forward-looking and pragmatic Labour council, he played a major part in slowing and halting Hartlepool's decline and then establishing and promoting its renaissance.
	There are many stories of my predecessor—too many to mention here. However, I will tell one: when asked what item he would rescue from his house in the event of a fire, he replied that he would rescue his Hartlepool United football scarf.
	I share his devotion to my local football team, and wish the club every success. I also wish Peter Mandelson a long and successful career as a European Commissioner. I am confident that he will remember his former parliamentary constituency when drafting policies in his role as Trade Commissioner.
	I was born during Ted Leadbitter's time as Member of Parliament for Hartlepool. Ted served the town for 28 years. In paying tribute to him, I can do no better than quote Walter Gill, who said in his "The Hartlepool Story"
	"above all he has been a good constituency MP, ever ready and efficient in dealing with the problems of individuals where he could, a quality highly valued in this borough and a prime reason for his parliamentary longevity".
	My first priority is to be a conscientious and diligent constituency representative. I can only hope that I am as successful as Ted Leadbitter was in that regard.
	While researching this speech, I read the maiden speeches of my two immediate predecessors. What is striking is how they both—30 years apart—concentrate on the problems of unemployment and the social problems caused by economic neglect. Peter Mandelson referred in his maiden speech to apprenticeships being axed, young school leavers failing to find training places and the local training and enterprise council having its training budget for 1992–93 cut by 20 per cent.
	When I was growing up in Hartlepool in the late 1980s, unemployment was over 25 per cent., and considered a price worth paying by a Government who saw unemployment as a cure for the disease rather than the disease itself. Under this Labour Government, unemployment in Hartlepool has fallen dramatically to 5 per cent. There are more people in work in the town than ever before. Youth unemployment has been cut by three quarters, thanks to the new deal.
	When I was canvassing in the recent by-election, no one said to me that they could not find a job or secure a training place. Had the by-election taken place 10 years ago, I do not think candidates would have been able to walk down any street in the town without people being angry about the lack of jobs. The skill of this Government, and the Treasury team in particular, has allowed world-class firms to flourish in Hartlepool—firms like Corus, which exports high-quality steel pipes all over the world, and Huntsman Tioxide, which produces chemicals that we take for granted in products such as paint and other household goods.
	A large number of Members travelled up to Hartlepool to campaign in the by-election. Labour Members, certainly, have commented to me that Hartlepool had a vibrancy, and said how great the people are. Members were sustained during the by-election by mince and dumplings in the Cozy Cafe and fish and chips in Seaton Carew at Don Bee's, had the best pint there is—Cameron's Strongarm—at the Causeway pub, and at night sampled excellent cuisine at the town's many restaurants, such as the Lotus Garden, Krimo's and Cafe India.
	I hope that all Members came away with a sense of industry, pride and strength in the Hartlepool character—and, I might add, of how cheeky we are. The town did, after all, elect the local football mascot—H'angus the Monkey—as its first executive mayor, and some people in the town expressed disappointment that the mayor did not take office and attend meetings wearing the monkey suit. I also remember hearing about Tom Burlison, a strong union official who now sits in another place and who used to play for Hartlepool United. Tom was explaining a particularly tight wage settlement with the management to the union lads when a voice chirped up from the back: "Aye, and you weren't much good at football, either."
	The Hartlepool people—with our indefinable mix of politeness and irreverence, nostalgia about our heritage and ambition for the future, and concern about family and society with unique individuality—are what I love most about the town, and it is Hartlepool people who provide me with the best memories of the by-election campaign and who will ensure the town moves from strength to strength.
	There are people like Bob and Roni Farrow and Alex Sedgwick, who play an instrumental role in the Belle Vue community and sports centre, making sure that £54 million of new deal for communities' money is delivered to the people in the estates. I think that the centre—along with the Stranton centre, whose opening I attended on Friday and which is run by Sharon Pounder—gives real hope to deprived neighbourhoods that have been neglected for generations.
	Then there are primary school teachers like Dave Dobson at Kingsley, Margaret Bousfield at Fens—my old school, and the school that my kids attend—and Andy Brown at West View, who have worked hard to ensure that Hartlepool's key stage 1 and 2 figures are the fastest-improving set of results in the entire country. There are people like Tony Sutcliffe at Hartlepool college of further education and Dorothy Lownds at Hartlepool sixth-form college, who have provided excellent post-16 education in the town and who have enabled more Hartlepool people than ever before to take vocational qualifications or to go to university.
	There are also people such as PC Shelley Watson, who is helping to pull people from different organisations together to tackle antisocial and yobbish behaviour on the streets of Hartlepool, and putting in place the tough measures that the Labour Government are offering to communities.
	Let us not forget that Hartlepool borough council, of which I was a member for two years, is an excellent authority. Council officers such as Dave Stubbs, Karen Oliver and Denise Ogden work tirelessly in the community. These officers are led by decent councillors of all political persuasions, but particularly by the hard-working Labour councillors. There are also people such as Tony Collins, who leads the largest charity in the town, Hartlepool hospice, and which demonstrates the care, dignity and strong volunteering ethic of Hartlepool and its people.
	There has been so much progress in Hartlepool since 1997, but more still needs to be done. The town is concerned about antisocial behaviour and I want to ensure that tough measures are enforced to make people feel safe and secure. Health inequalities still persist in the town and I will make a strong case to ensure that more resources are pumped into our estates so that people can receive medical care and health advice on their doorstep.
	The number of business start-ups in Hartlepool is among the lowest in the country. Given our unique character and the cheekiness that I mentioned earlier, I think that Hartlepool people would make exceptional entrepreneurs. There is good news in this regard, however. Only this week, the Hartlepool Mail—an excellent example of a local paper—reported a fourfold rise in the number of small business creations. The Victoria harbour initiative, a £500 million regeneration of the port area, will consolidate the progress made in the last decade by the marina and the historic quay and become a flagship for the region for jobs, businesses and homes.
	We do not want handouts; we want the tools to enable hard-working families to have a good quality of life. Under the Labour Government, we are getting those tools, but I will fight to ensure that my town receives more. We want control of our own destiny.
	I thank the House for the courtesy that it has shown in listening to me today. I promise that I will be a strong advocate for my home town. I will not let the people of Hartlepool down.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright). I remember as clearly as if it were yesterday making my maiden speech from almost the place where he is now sitting, some 12 and a half years ago. He made an excellent speech. I participated in the by-election campaign. It was an excellent, clean campaign, and I pay tribute to him for that. If anyone other than our candidate had to win, we would have wished it to be him, and I congratulate him. I also pay tribute to the warmness and openness of the people of Hartlepool. They are delightful, and he is privileged to represent them. I can also attest to the variety and excellence of the hostelries in his constituency.
	I would like to correct just one thing that the hon. Gentleman said, however. He seemed to think that history began in Hartlepool in 1997. In fact, one of the biggest acts of regeneration there was carried out by the Conservatives in the 1980s, in the form of the Queen Victoria marina. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will oversee the continuing regeneration of the chemical industries that have been running down, and the development in his constituency of the new tourist revival that was very evident from what we saw. I congratulate him and hope that he will have a long, happy and successful career in this place.
	Before I turn to the rest of my speech, I want to reiterate the concern of the House for the safety and well-being of Margaret Hassan. If anybody was trying to bring help and benefit to the people of Iraq, it was her, through her humanitarian work. We send her and her family every possible sympathy and wish them a successful outcome.
	The need for us to consider defence matters has perhaps never been more pressing than it has been in the period since the collapse of the Soviet Union. We face a disparate and hugely varied array of threats that is almost unprecedented in post-war history. Yet the Secretary of State told me on 15 September 2004 that he could not understand anyone making the point about overstretch. If we add to that the Prime Minister's commitment to our African unity force, and the Government's proposals to reduce the number of armed troops through the amalgamation of regiments, we begin to see that our troops—who are among the most professional in the world, if not the most professional—are perhaps not being treated in the way they deserve.
	We were informed by the press—not by the Secretary of State for Defence or the Prime Minister—that a decision had apparently already been taken last week to redeploy 650 Black Watch troops to the central region of Iraq. The Secretary of State has told us today that those troops will not be taking their heavy armour. We have not been given a specific answer as to who will provide air cover, logistics and communications support. If they are to take only their Warrior trucks, what sort of a force are they? Are they a heavy armour force, and who will supply the air cover, logistics and communications support? Given the possibility of a serious incident—these troops are going into a more dangerous area—we and the general public deserve to know the answers to those questions.
	What will the Government do to the Black Watch, following their valiant service in Iraq? Not only the Black Watch but the Royal Highland Fusiliers, the Highlanders and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, following their valiant service in Iraq and elsewhere, will return home and be amalgamated. That is a disgrace.
	We should note the unsurprising risk of a yawning time gap between the mothballing of our aircraft carriers and the hoped-for introduction into service, by 2012 at the earliest, of their replacement. There is also the risk that the Government will fall into the traps created by their failed smart procurement programme. As we have heard today, both the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the Naval Staff are worried about our ability to carry out wholly autonomous operations in future. In stark contrast, we Conservatives have an effective and broadly welcomed policy. This country's armed forces are among the best trained in the world and we owe them a great deal. Because of this debt to those willing to serve our country, it is the duty of the Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to question the Government about the technical capabilities that we provide them with.
	On Iraq, in September 2002—well before the war—I made a speech in this House in which I said that I doubted whether there was anything new in the dossier, or whether there were any weapons of mass destruction. In November 2002, I called for a comprehensive plan of reconstruction and renewal for Iraq. Indeed, it is this issue that demonstrates one of the Government's biggest culpabilities. Before they took this country to war in Iraq, they did not have a clue how to reconstruct the peace, and that reconstruction is still going on at a very slow pace. We need, for example, to ensure that the infrastructure—the sewerage, lights and power—is improved, so that everybody's daily life is improved. Only in that way will the Iraqi people feel more likely to support a democratic government.
	Furthermore, if the people of Iraq are to be reassured that we are not occupiers but peacekeepers, we must build a more broadly based peacekeeping force. That will involve taking action through the United Nations to ensure that more Asian countries commit troops to that force. I believe that they would be willing so to commit. That would bring two benefits: it would provide greater reassurance to the people of Iraq, and release troops for deployment in other areas of the world.
	We must build relationships with Muslim organisations in this country and abroad. If we can build a much broader consensus with the Arab world, we will face the threat of world terrorism with a much more positive view. In that connection, I support the Prime Minister's efforts to secure a Palestinian peace initiative. I hope that one of his first actions following the election of the next American President will be to telephone him not only to congratulate him, but to say that now we must seize the initiative in order to bring about a middle east peace settlement. The entire middle east is in a very fragile state. Not only is Iraq, whose oil reserves in the south we have done so much to guard, fragile; the situation in Saudi Arabia is very fragile, and there is a particularly difficult and emerging situation in Iran, Iraq's neighbour.
	We know that Iran has been building up its armed forces and its nuclear capability, so it is vital in any peace reconstruction effort—particularly if we are eventually to withdraw our troops from Iraq—that we build better relations with Iran. We must find a way, working with our allies and through a broad-based coalition—including the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese—to exert diplomatic pressure on Iran to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency full and open access to Iran's nuclear programme.
	Iran is currently the second biggest exporter of oil in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel, and we must find a way of gaining an assurance that its desire for nuclear power is purely to supplement its locally abundant energy force. To date, Iran's somewhat dangerous behaviour and failure adequately to fill in the gaps in its report to the IAEA has been the result of a number of domestic factors. Most prominent among those has been the influence of Iran's religious and political supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who has consistently, if gradually, increased the power of the conservative factions within his country's governing elite. We must build better relations with Iran.
	I hope that the deployment of an extra 650 troops into the central and more dangerous part of Iraq is not a prelude to deeper involvement in the general morass of Iraq. We must try to build a democratic Iraq, but it will be very difficult indeed to achieve that. Perhaps a federated structure granting some degree of autonomy to the different parts of Iraq may be the way forward. Our Government must work hard if we are to avoid being embroiled in another Vietnam situation. Above all, we must have some idea of an exit strategy, which relies on having strong Iraqi leadership—including strong police forces and armed forces—so that Iraq can be all the more stable in future.

Llew Smith: When I participated in last year's debate on defence, I mentioned that there seemed to be a reluctance to debate the whole issue of nuclear weapons. In retrospect, I suppose that I have been proven wrong, because for the past 12 months we have spent many hours in the Chamber debating nuclear weapons. Sadly, the nuclear weapons that we debated were the mythical Iraqi nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
	It was obvious from the Secretary of State's opening speech that there is still a great reluctance to debate, or even mention, nuclear weapons. I do not think that he mentioned them on a single occasion in his speech. We should debate that subject. We should debate our own nuclear weapons. We should debate Trident, which has been dubbed the £15 billion mass killer. We should debate the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons deployed by the US and Russia.
	We should also debate the 200 nuclear weapons deployed by Israel. We should never forget Mordecai Vanunu, who spent 16 years of his life telling and protesting the truth about Israel's nuclear weapons while all those around him were lying. Although he has been released from one form of imprisonment, he is now faced with another—being unable to leave Israel.
	I make no apologies for returning to the question of nuclear weapons today. It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State's admission, on previous occasions in response to my questioning, that he was willing to press the nuclear button. He has said that he would be willing to be involved in what would be the greatest act of murder ever committed in the history of this beautiful planet of ours. However, he remains reluctant, and still refuses, to mention the sort of circumstances in which he would be prepared to use nuclear weapons. He still refuses to tell the House who the enemy is, against whom those nuclear weapons are directed, and against whom they would be used.
	The Government's latest attempt to justify nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction appeared in their response to a question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies). The Minister for Europe stated:
	"Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty . . . five states—the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Russia and China—are legally entitled to possess nuclear weapons."—[Official Report, 1 September 2004; Vol. 424, c. 689W.]
	The problem is that that statement is untrue. The Minister conflated the definition of a nuclear weapon state under the NPT with its legality. The NPT, however, is clear on this matter: article 9, paragraph 3, states:
	"For the purpose of this Treaty, a Nuclear Weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive devices prior to 1 January, 1967."
	That defines what constitutes a nuclear weapon state, but it does not make legal our continued possession of nuclear WMD. In fact, as Ministers well know, the NPT explicitly requires our nuclear WMD to be negotiated away. Most independent observers will agree that we have failed to carry out that obligation.

Julian Lewis: That is a common myth put forward by unilateral nuclear disarmers. Article 6 does not require us to get rid of our nuclear weapons unless or until there is a global agreement by all countries to get rid of all nuclear weapons.

Llew Smith: By sheer coincidence, I happen to have the relevant passage from article 6 of the NPT. It states:
	"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

Julian Lewis: That means the whole world.

Llew Smith: I have set out what article 6 states, and I shall now elaborate on that. By refusing to negotiate away our nuclear weapons, this country remains in breach of UN resolutions dating back to 1968, yet Iraq was illegally invaded on the pretext that it was in breach of UN resolutions since 1991.
	Next spring, the NPT comes up for review at the UN. It is certain that many nations will rightly press the nuclear weapon states to explain their inaction in respect of carrying out nuclear disarmament, given that two members of the UN Security Council—the UK and the US, which bristle with their own nuclear WMD—prosecuted an invasion of Iraq to disarm that country of nuclear weapons that it never possessed.
	Not only does the UK not participate in nuclear disarmament, but Ministers plan to escalate the nuclear arms race. They intend to extend for another 10 years the bilateral agreement with the US that allowed the purchase of Trident and continued nuclear weapons co-operation with the Americans. I objected to that in early-day motion 1407, which I tabled on 24 June and which deals with the US-UK mutual defence agreement renewal and the NPT.
	International lawyers at Matrix chambers in London have examined the text of the 1958 US-UK mutual defence agreement, in relation to the text of the NPT that was drawn up 10 years later. In a recent report, they concluded that the bilateral nuclear pact with the US was a breach of the NPT, and thus confirmed what many of us have argued for many a long year.
	As I have pointed out before, the Trident nuclear weapons of mass destruction system was bought from the United States and its warheads were tested in the United States, which also provides targeting technology and command-and-control support. By any independent judgment, that constitutes an indirect support of nuclear weapons of mass destruction by one state for another, which is also not permitted under article 1 of the non-proliferation treaty.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government or any future Government were minded to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons in succession to Trident, they would be in direct breach of the NPT?

Llew Smith: I very much agree, and I would elaborate on that point if time allowed.
	Having invaded Iraq, the US now threatens its neighbour, Iran, over its atomic aspirations. However, as a detailed article on nuclear proliferation in the Financial Times on 9 September pointed out, doubts persist over Iran's true intentions regarding its nuclear programme. Inspections have not brought proof that the Iranian regime has military intentions. John Bolton, who is President Bush's hawkish under-secretary of state for arms control and security, said:
	"The Bush administration is reinventing the non-proliferation regime it inherited, crafting policies to fill gaping holes, reinforcing earlier patchwork fixes, assembling allies, creating precedents and changing perceived realities and stilted legal thinking. The frontlines in our non-proliferation strategy must extend beyond the well-known rogue states to the trade routes and entities engaged in supplying proliferant countries."
	He concluded:
	"We are just at the beginning, but it is an extraordinary beginning. Not only are we meeting this ultimate of threats on the field, we are advancing on it, battling not only aggressively, but successfully. And so we must, for the outcome of this battle may hold nothing less than the chance to survive."
	It is clear that despite it being illegal under the UN charter, the US is prepared to implement regime change wherever and whenever it chooses. I am saddened that our Prime Minister was prepared to go along with regime change in Iraq. We have the right to know whether the Government believe that regime change is legal under UN provision.
	I was told in a written reply earlier this month, again by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, that
	"Issues of compliance with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) form an integral part of our dialogue with a number of Governments and other bodies . . . the Foreign Secretary is confident that the United Kingdom continues to fulfil all of its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Treaty."—[Official Report, 4 October 2004; Vol. 424, c. 1839W.]
	I doubt that many NPT members would agree. It is not diplomatically credible to say to other countries, "Do as we say, not as we do." That is what this Government have said for too many years.
	Fingers will rightly be pointed at us at the NPT review in New York next spring. Luckily, a positive motion will be tabled by countries such as Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden, entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon free world: Accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments." My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the motion and he should tell the House whether the Government will put their name to it. If they do so, we can begin to recover some of our lost credibility—lost as a result of the war in Iraq, which we were told was about weapons of mass destruction. It is ironic to hear some of the people defending that war—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Hugo Swire: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright), who made an excellent speech. I hope that he will not just regard this topic as the one on which he made his maiden speech but that he will continue to take an interest in defence matters. I wish him a long and successful career in this place.
	"A great country such as Germany and such lesser ones as Spain, Belgium, Holland have by their budgetary actions shown that they reject the principle accepted by every serious society for centuries, that it is impossible to have an effective foreign policy without a credible defence policy and plausible forces."
	So said Sir Max Hastings, during an after-dinner speech recently. He went on to say that Britain was not yet at that stage. However, our armed forces, especially the infantry, are being asked to do more and more at a time when the Government are intent on reducing that highly overstretched arm by 10 per cent.
	Our debate is entitled "Defence in the World". We have heard about Britain's unique position in its commitment to the UN Security Council, NATO, the EU, the Commonwealth and the G8, but we should take this opportunity to debate a more thorough review of where Britain should be in relation to defence in the world: whether we concentrate on being policemen and peacekeepers; whether we can be a reactive as well as proactive force; whether we should get involved in pre-emptive strikes and regime changes. Might our close ally, the United States, be growing too reliant on us and be asking us to do too much?
	We have not intellectually and thoroughly thought through the world post the cold war era—the fact that armies are no longer conventional, the real and everyday concern about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, as the Secretary of State said earlier, the proliferation of weak and failing states, with all that results from that. We continue to spend vast amounts on equipment in our determination to keep up with our American allies, with an expensive air force and a costly carrier fleet. At the end of the exercise, unless we are careful, we shall have an enormous amount of expensive equipment but no one to operate it.
	I am grateful to my constituent, General Sir John Waters, a former General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland, for bringing to my attention the speech from which I quoted earlier. In the post-Falklands era, it was Sir John who came up with the maxim that defence policy has to deal with probabilities, not possibilities, adding, "You never can tell." That is fine, but what we know—what we can tell—is that we shall always need troops on the ground. What we know is that those troops must be highly trained and professional, and that our regimental system, developed over centuries, is the best proven system in the world to ensure that that happens. It is tried and tested, the envy of many. What we cannot afford to do is to threaten that system at a time when it is stretched to the limit.
	Today, we heard from the Secretary of State about the surge requirement in the run-up to the elections in Iraq. There are Members on both sides of the House who regard the deployment of the Black Watch as mission creep, although I think that that is questionable. However, I question the Prime Minister's wisdom in promising at Question Time yesterday that the Black Watch would be home by Christmas. Home to what exactly?
	My constituent, Major Duncan Bengough, late of the Black Watch, has raised with me time and time again the threat to his old regiment. Having read through the submissions that I have received I am in agreement with much that he says. I leave it to Scottish Members to argue the case more forcefully, as I am sure they will, but surely the key point is that the creation of a large regiment, such as the proposed Royal Regiment of Scotland, would inevitably mean the end of the existing small regiments. I am concerned that the Chief of the General Staff apparently has a relaxed view about the realignment of infantry battalions, not least as regards my old regiment, the Grenadier Guards.
	I want to spend the remaining time allocated to me arguing the case for the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment. The regiment, and its predicament, has attracted much attention in my constituency and the west country in general, not least from the Conservative spokesman in Teignbridge, Stanley Johnson, who has mounted an excellent campaign and has proved to be an assiduous campaigner on the regiment's behalf. Neither Stanley Johnson nor I can understand the irony that a Government who are keen to push a regional agenda, with regional assemblies and regionalisation, simultaneously fail to appreciate the strong and logical regional aspects of county regiments in terms of both history and recruitment. The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment enjoys the freedom of 15 towns, cities and boroughs across the two counties and two more towns are queuing to grant it freedom.
	I shall not get involved this afternoon in what I think would be the best option if a merger were to take place, but I know what is desirable and what is not. There might be an opportunity to bring the men of Devon and Dorset together with their fellow west country men of Somerset and Cornwall in the Light Infantry. That suggestion would have much merit and would create the opportunity to form a new and regionally distinct regiment from Wales, the midlands, the west and the south-west in an equitable and balanced way.
	Our county regiment faces a critical time. If regiments such as the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment lose their long and deep associations with counties, and the associations that counties have with them, they risk being irreversibly damaged. Some 85 per cent. of the regiment's recruits come from, or live in, the two counties, or were educated there or have another close association with them. If the regimental identity were lost or submerged in a wider entity, the long-term viability of the unit would be put into question, irrespective of the cosmetic solutions proposed.
	Following our recent conference in Bournemouth, the shadow Secretary of State articulated the fact that an incoming Conservative Government will increase defence spending on front-line services by £2.7 billion. Perhaps more importantly, however, I was heartened that he said:
	"As a result of this settlement we will retain the infantry regiments that Labour propose to do away with".
	When we discuss geopolitical matters, as we tend to in the House, and talk about the threat of international terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, we do so in the knowledge that we will have to face up to and deal with that sooner rather than later. However, the bottom line is that unless we have faith in our existing infantry battalions and the regimental system, and unless we can show that we care about their past and future, we will place them in an invidious position. It is worth considering that as we send the Black Watch into a new sphere in Iraq, so that those who serve in it realise that we are thinking about them and those in other local regiments. They should know that their regiments will not necessarily be merged or disbanded on their return. We need to put our faith in them, and show good faith in them, when asking them to do jobs that many of us would be incapable of doing.

Nick Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). He is quite right that there is a real debate about resources and their proper application, and he cited the carrier programme as an example of that. I hold a different view from his on the programme, because I think that the Government have essentially got things right, but that does not mean that we should not discuss such important matters on the Floor of the House.
	I caution the hon. Gentleman not to put too much confidence in the extra money that the shadow Secretary of State is pledging for defence. If he was listening carefully—I am sure that he was—he would know that the extra money was predicated on savings.
	I have to say that we used to say the same thing when we were in opposition. Although it is plausible and gets one out of the difficulties of having to make the hard decisions that confront Governments, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman did not say whether the new money would be spent once the savings had been made or before. As he knows, if the money is spent before the savings are made, that will eventually be a burden on the taxpayer or come through in inflationary pressures within the UK economy.
	Before I say anything more, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright) on an excellent maiden speech. I welcome him as a colleague to the northern group of Labour MPs. I was particularly taken by the tribute that he paid to his predecessor, somebody I liked and admired very much and went drinking with often—Mr. Ted Leadbitter.
	I was taken by the fact, and it shows great promise in a new Member, that my hon. Friend was able to list a number of the excellent pubs in Hartlepool and seemed to know them well. There is one habit that I hope my hon. Friend will not take over from Ted. Ted was great company and a very engaging man, but when it came to getting his round in, he was—how does one put it kindly?—not to be found at the forefront. If there was a round of four people, he would be sixth or seventh to get the drinks.
	I welcome my hon. Friend here and I know that others will welcome him for who he is and will also welcome him for who he is not. The maiden speech was an excellent contribution, and he was particularly right to make reference to unemployment. Had that speech been made 10 years ago, or indeed when I at the same age made my maiden speech in 1983, he would have had to speak of the scourge of unemployment and the effect that it was having on our constituencies. The fact that he did not have to do so reflects great credit on the achievements of our Government since 1997.
	I want to identify myself with the tributes that have been paid by the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesmen for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to our armed forces and their families. I say that on my behalf but also on behalf of the community that I represent. All Tyneside Members know of the close links between our constituencies and the infantry, artillery, marines and Royal Navy.
	In the debate we are taking a strategic look at our armed services in the world. I accept that the Secretary of State concentrated his remarks on the Army and the situation in Iraq; it could not have been otherwise. However, he did not refer to our strategic nuclear deterrent, although others have referred to it. I remember arguing the case for and against the Trident programme with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) as it was being embarked on some 20 years ago. The hon. Gentleman thought that it was a good thing and would defend the country; I thought it was a waste of money then and I have to say that I still think it is a waste of money. Whatever the Trident programme has done to our country, it has most certainly consumed a large amount of money, duplicating a capacity that NATO already had. We should have spent the money on supplementing the conventional forces that are available to NATO. It is the case for conventional defence within that strategic framework that I really want to make. Before I do so, may I endorse something that another Opposition Member said about the middle east peace process?
	I believe passionately that we must engage with that process and bring others to do that, too. I mean that generally, but also specifically with regard to the United States of America. If anyone can drive the process forward, the United States Government can. To those who complain about American engagement in the middle east, I gently say that American isolationism would be far worse and mean that we could not make progress.
	I support the Government's approach and I especially welcome the renewed naval programme. Now that the costs of building Trident have been met, we can have a naval programme, which sits in the context of what we hope to achieve in the world. It has been well thought through. The carrier programme and the landing ship logistics are right. It is also essential to renew the fleet auxiliaries because some of the ships are 30 years old and older. Renewal was delayed because the money was spent on Trident and there were other, more pressing needs for it. However, it cannot be delayed for long. If we are to play an out-of-region role that relies on ships, the ships must be resupplied, refuelled and re-equipped.
	The programme is so ambitious that it will require all the capacity that is currently available in the United Kingdom. In work load peaks next year and the following year, we will need something like twice our current engineering capacity. After that, as the carrier programme comes on stream, we will need approximately two and a half times our current productive capacity to provide the carriers for the Royal Navy. I believe that they should be provided, but serious issues must be considered.
	Let me comment on a matter of detail that is of great interest to my constituents. The Secretary of State has given a welcome pledge that the work will be done in the United Kingdom. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister of State confirm that the assurance extends to fabricated components for the vessels, the military afloat reach and sustainability—MARS—programme and the fleet auxiliaries?
	The programme that we have set ourselves poses great challenges to the Ministry of Defence, the departments that deal with procurement and the industry. The Government are feeling their way towards an approach that is called "alliancing" and trying to ensure that the best use is made of all the possible facilities—some are privately owned—in the procurement process.
	Getting it wrong would lead to a National Audit Office report that would dwarf previous reports. I asked someone who knows about such matters whether there had ever been a favourable NAO report on a major item of defence procurement. Nobody could think of one but that does not mean that we should continue to repeat the process and have another damaging report.
	I urge my Front-Bench colleagues to take a close interest in the public policy issues that surround the important matters that we are considering and ensure that we have an industrial strategy that does more than assume that individual bits of equipment can be bought as if they were regular items that are purchased off the shelf. The huge capital programme needs careful thought and management. I urge a co-operative rather than a confrontational or competitive approach to the industry.

Pete Wishart: This is the first time that I have taken part in a defence debate and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. I greatly enjoyed the excellent maiden speech of our new colleague, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright). I do not know if he is especially keen to emulate the colourful career of his immediate predecessor, but he strikes me as the sort of chap who knows the difference between his guacamole and his mushy peas.
	I shall confine my remarks to my local regiment, the Black Watch. Our debate is about defence in the world and, after the Secretary of State's statement, it appears that the regiment will undertake much more of that particular task. The Black Watch was founded in my constituency in a little town called Aberfeldy on the banks of the Tay almost 300 years ago. My constituents therefore have a great association with the regiment.
	My constituency is one of the major recruiting areas for the Black Watch. Of course, it goes without saying that there is a great admiration and respect for the most difficult task that they do on behalf of all of us throughout the United Kingdom. I need not tell the Minister that a great chill will go through forces' homes tonight across Tayside and Fife when the implications of what has been suggested in the statement are worked out later this evening.
	There has been a lot of talk about the Black Watch this week. In fact, we cannot escape from it—every time that we turn on a television set or read a newspaper, there is analysis of what the role of the Black Watch will be, where the troops may or may not be deployed and what sort of task they may or may not be asked to perform. At last, thankfully, after a week of speculation, the Secretary of State has had the guts to come to the House and tell it to us straight. We should be grateful to him for that at least.
	It has now been confirmed that the Black Watch will be deployed to the American sector. That significantly raises the stakes and our involvement in the Iraq conflict, and it raises questions about what sort of task the Black Watch will be asked to do. To take that decision without the full authority of the House on a substantive debate and vote is entirely wrong. The public expect us to take such a vote; it is what they think we do. When we significantly escalate our involvement in the Iraq war, I am sure that the public would like to think that the House would have a proper debate and vote at the end of the day.
	My first and probably only concern is for the brave young men whom we are asking to perform that new and dangerous task. Those young men will now be put at greater risk, but for what? My heart also goes out to the families who have been waiting for news and confirmation of that redeployment for the past week. I want to echo some of the remarks made in the earlier statement. The way that the Government have dealt with the redeployment has been nothing short of scandalous. Forces' families have been waiting anxiously for news about the redeployment, but the Government have used spin and prevaricated on the issue. We all knew what would happen. I knew last Friday night, when I was contacted by the media on several occasions and asked for my response to the redeployment. If the media knew on Friday and Saturday night, someone must have told them—they do not get these things from fresh air—and what I heard on Friday night was almost entirely accurate given what we heard today.
	We heard the Secretary of State's non-statement on Monday, which was significant for only one thing: he let the cat out the bag in response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). The alarm bells started to ring for me several weeks ago, when forces' families were phoning my office and talking about a further deployment and a further tour of duty for the Black Watch. There were all sorts of sinister rumours then about the Black Watch being deployed to Falluja or central Baghdad, but, thankfully, that has not happened. When I raised those issues, the Ministry of Defence reassured me that nothing was planned for the Black Watch and that its troops would be home in time. Such faith was put into those reassurances that we organised a homecoming parade for the Black Watch in Perth in the next few weeks. It now looks as though we will have to put away the bunting and flags for a few weeks.
	When the Prime Minister rose to his feet yesterday and said that the Black Watch will be home for Christmas, that was a pledge, and we will hold him to that promise. I was disappointed that nothing was mentioned in the statement about when the Black Watch would return. I was also disappointed that no clarification was given: the Secretary of State did not say unequivocally that that would happen. [Interruption.] Does the Minister of State want to intervene?

Paul Keetch: In fairness to the Secretary of State, he indicated that he agreed with the Prime Minister that the Black Watch would be home by Christmas.

Pete Wishart: We will see. The bunting and flags have been put away now, but we will wait with great interest to see the Black Watch come home. If one regiment deserves to come home for Christmas, it is most definitely the Black Watch. Regardless of what the Secretary of State says and his reassurances, morale is now an issue in the Black Watch. The Secretary of State may be reassured by speaking to self-selected officers in Iraq, but hon. Members deal with the families. We have to respond to the telephone calls to our offices from anxious parents who wonder what on earth is going on. We have to try to find the answers on their behalf.
	I have detected a darkening of mood since the call was made placing the Black Watch on notice to move. The regiment has already done two tours of duty in Iraq and been away for four Christmases. It is now being deployed to the most dangerous of theatres, but those who serve in it will perform their task with their customary professionalism and high standards. Regardless of what some of them may feel about the politics of the job, they will get the job done, and they will do it well.
	It is impossible to consider the redeployment without a cursory glance at the politics. For me, the decision has politics written all over it. I have great difficulty with the military case for redeploying the Black Watch to the American sector. It has been said many times that there is an overwhelming number of American forces in Iraq. America is the last world superpower. If it does not have enough forces, it should bring more across from the States. Why is it that 650 Scottish infantrymen have to go there to back up the Americans in the American sector? What on earth are they going into? A mess of the Americans making. It is a military quagmire because of the razed-earth policy—the shoot-on-sight policy. They will experience real difficulties and I feel sorry for those people who will be asked to perform this most dangerous of tasks.
	The soldiers of the Black Watch will once again put their necks on the line for the Government. They will do that with their high standards and professionalism, but they will also do it with heavy hearts, not because of what they have been asked to do militarily—they will follow orders and ensure that the job is done—but because while they do the Government's bidding abroad, they have been stabbed in the back at home by a Government who are determined to amalgamate them out of existence.
	I reaffirm my support for the campaign to save our regiments. I do not need to tell the Minister that there is overwhelming hostility to his plans to amalgamate them out of existence. The campaign has spread all over Scotland, not just in recruiting areas like my own. In fact, it has galvanised communities. It has been fantastic. Usually when hon. Members get the petition board out and head down to town centres to get signatures, we are met with hostility and indifference, but not in this campaign. People are queuing up to sign. A little town called Alyth in my constituency has fewer than 3,000 people. I will present a petition next week from that town with 2,000 signatures in favour of saving our regiments.
	The people of Scotland have run a vocal and affectionate campaign. What is it about the way in which we organise our regiments that has attracted such affection? It might have something to do with tradition. People might like the way that they do things and enjoy and appreciate the links with the community. I think it is more than that, however. People have the confidence and reassurance that our armed forces are the best in world. They are the best not because of accident but because of design—how they are structured into regiments. That is why they have such significant support from people all over Scotland. Our armed forces are the envy of the world and the way in which the regimental system works is the envy of many armed forces throughout the world. We tinker with that loyalty, determination and comradeship at our peril.
	On Saturday afternoon we will all come together again to reaffirm our support for the regiments in the city of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke). We will try once again to rally the troops to save our regiments. That will be cross-party and involve representatives from the Opposition parties and Labour, who will be there to put the case for saving the regiments. However, I am disappointed by the attitude of the Conservatives. I listened to them at their conference. On Monday, the Leader of the Opposition said that they would definitely reverse any decision to abolish any Scottish regiment. On Tuesday, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), said that any reversal of the decision would be impossible. On Wednesday, there was a clarifying statement saying that they may be inclined to save some of the regiments given the right timeline, situation and conditions. The public are looking for better and more wholehearted support from the Conservatives.
	I do not support the war. I never have and never will. I want the Black Watch home. They have been away far too long. What we are asking them to do is a step too far. I want an exit strategy. I do not want any more of these brave young men placed in the dangers that they face today. We must have solutions. Our solution is simple: replace the coalition forces with coalition of forces from Muslim countries. It should seem not like a coalition of occupation, but like a real force for change and democracy in Iraq. The situation is getting worse. We are entering into a quagmire. Let us stop digging and start looking for solutions.

Harry Cohen: I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright) for an excellent maiden speech.
	The war was wrong. It was undertaken under false pretences. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We were not greeted as liberators. Because of that false assumption, there was no proper plan to make the country safe post-war. It has not made the middle east safer or the Israel-Palestine conflict less virulent. No link has been proven between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaeda—they detested each other. A police state was turned into a failed state, making it more amenable for terrorists to operate in. As regards the war on terror, it was the wrong target. President Mubarak of Eygpt warned:
	"Instead of having one bin Laden, we will have one hundred bin Ladens."
	Up to 40,000 people, many of them civilians and innocents, have been killed in the war and its aftermath.
	Apart from the continuation of an arms embargo, I did not support economic sanctions. Some have argued that they worked. Certainly there were no WMDs. But the sanctions targeted and impoverished the poor, in effect bringing early death to millions of Iraqis over the decade. Sanctions weakened the ability of the opposition in Iraq to bring about change. However, the point is well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that
	"had Al Gore won the 2000 US election, the sanctions policy would have continued and the UK Government would have continued to support them claiming 'containment worked'".
	The war was a Bush family project. Saddam referred to George W. Bush as "son of the viper" and George W. reminded journalists in 1993 that Saddam
	"tried to kill my dad".
	Bush senior wrote in his book that in the Gulf war he did not push beyond Basra further into Iraq to Baghdad because there was no viable exit strategy and American troops would become occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. Bush junior saw that as not finishing the job. He and his neo-cons were determined to do so, whatever the relevance or the consequence.
	The mass graves testify to the appalling nature of the Saddam regime, but they were a joint venture with the Reagan Administration. That Administration set out to weaken the Islamic revolution in Iran. It used Saddam as a client to initiate war. It supplied him with weapons, radar and targeting equipment and even facilitated the supply of chemical weapons from German sources. After the 1991 Gulf war, the Bush senior Administration, having exhorted Saddam's opponents to rise up, suddenly realised that many of them were Shi'as—likely allies of Iran—and refused them access to Saddam's weapons, but allowed his troops to come through their lines to perpetrate the slaughter of the Shi'as and thereby maintain him in power.
	Many people believe the war on Iraq was driven by greed for oil, and I agree, but there are two commentaries that are worth putting on the record in Parliament. First, Elaine Storkey, writing in The Independent on 17 April, stated that the war was underpinned by religious rationalisation, a belief that the "civilised world" must move in to "set the barbarians right", and an unfaltering conviction that
	"we are civilised and we will therefore do good".
	But, as she notes,
	"There is nothing Christian about seeing Iraq as a battleground for good and evil"
	and
	"there are no civilised people in the Christian world, just people created by God with intrinsic dignity and significance."
	She continues:
	"The danger of the mind-set based on our occupation of civilisation is evident. We do not face the questions straight."
	Secondly, Ben White stated in Middle East International on 23 January that it is possible to detect a "superhero mentality" in the American Administration—a conception of America as
	"a superhero figure who, while essentially law-abiding, is permitted to break the normal community regulations in order to protect everybody from a greater evil".
	In a flawed assessment of good and evil, the American Administration has afforded itself superiority above the law. These commentaries point to a false perception of superiority in the US and UK, justifying war even when it is contrary to international law and opinion.
	The vast majority of UK troops in Iraq do a difficult and courageous job, but they have been misused in a bad cause. Their presence with the US troops is the very basis of insecurity. Deemed to be foreign troops occupying Iraq, they generate resistance in the form of a national war of liberation. The US does not plan to leave. It wants its hands on the oil reserves and leverage over neighbouring Arab states, so the insecurity and killing will not end.
	There has been no serious effort at reconstruction or rebuilding Iraq for the people. Recently I pressed the case for a small amount of assistance to help the Karbala eye clinic get going in Basra, in the British sphere of influence. To my astonishment I was told that the UK cannot afford to provide second-hand furnishings and had only £200,000 a year for such purposes.
	Cluster bomblets and other unexploded ordinance have not been cleared up.
	Reparations continue to bleed Iraq of its much-needed resources well after the fall of Saddam. They go to Kuwait and the big corporations, which have far less right to the money than impoverished Iraqis. We now know, thanks to Naomi Klein in The Guardian, that President Bush's envoy, James Baker, was playing a double game, officially calling for debt relief, but privately, on behalf of the Carlisle Group, promising to maintain the flow of money to Kuwait in exchange for a big payout. That amounted to extortion on the part of the Kuwaitis and theft from the Iraqis.
	The UN has been misused in this process. The Foreign Secretary claimed credit for the latest UN resolution, which allows the reparations to continue without being explicit. He cannot have been aware of the Baker role, so he must have been duped. Those reparations are unacceptable. As in the case of Germany after the first world war, they contribute to economic impoverishment and further conflict.
	Using Iraqi business and workers rather than private contractors and corrupt US corporations should have been the priority in rebuilding the infrastructure. Why has the UK been voiceless about Halliburton getting huge contracts without competition?
	The Abu Ghraib prison scandal continues to have implications, and not only for the United States. The Minister himself acknowledged that UK soldiers have been involved in the administration of Iraqi prisoners and has named two UK intelligence officers, Colonel Chris Terrington and Colonel Campbell James, who he says were "embedded within" the US unit responsible for the interrogations of Iraqi prisoners. It can be argued that, as with business, the legal principle of joint and several liability should apply. The Prime Minister, on behalf of the UK Government, claims credit for the removal of Saddam. In that case, we cannot properly disclaim responsibility for what the coalition forces do overall.
	Many deaths in custody have occurred, a number of which have been at the hands of British forces, and numerous cases are under investigation. The right-wing press in this country is applying pressure to stop the justice process. It points out that the war was illegal in the first place, but the law against wrongdoers must apply. Human rights for Iraqis must apply too, and it is dismaying to see the Government contesting that in the British courts.
	The proposed January elections in Iraq are a fig leaf for the Bush election campaign. Elections are, of course, desirable, but they are impractical in current circumstances—I think that that will be acknowledged as soon as the US election is over. The Interim Government are a puppet Government with little support. Shi'as form 60 per cent. of the population, and Ayotollah Sistani is the leader of the vast majority of them. Government should be handed over to him, without elections if necessary, with the agreement that he ensures that Kurds, Sunnis, and Moqtada al-Sadr are represented in his Administration and that proper elections will be held as soon as practical. For that to work, a commitment should be made for the troops to leave.
	The Prime Minister chose power—the Bush regime in the US—rather than the 2 million-person march of Britons against the war, who represented majority opinion in this country. That was his interpretation of the national interest. Almost certainly the decision to stand with Bush was made well in advance of the war itself. The justifications have fallen apart and we are left with "we got rid of Saddam." Well, we got rid of 40,000 others too. The UN Secretary-General has indicated his opinion that the war was illegal. There are many other dictators like Saddam, some of whom are worse than him, but they have not been targeted in that way. The Prime Minister told the House that Saddam could stay if he complied with UN resolution 1441, so getting rid of him was not, as we are supposed to accept, a purpose in itself.
	I am running short of time, but I want to make this point: our troops who have been killed are victims of messy, unreasonable politics of ingratiation with the inflexible dogmatist in the White House, whose war on terror is unfocused and costly. Even if he is re-elected, our troops need not continue to die for his mistakes, and I will continue to support the campaign to bring them home at an early opportunity. That is not cutting and running; that is facing up to our responsibility to bring about a solution. No solution is possible while foreign troops, UK and US, occupy Iraq—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Julian Lewis: A large number of Members must be disappointed that they will be unable to participate in the debate, so I shall try to cut my remarks to the bone in the hope that at least one more will manage to do so.
	I am happy to associate myself with the tributes paid to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright), who made a fine maiden speech. I should also like to say a word for the defeated Conservative candidate for Hartlepool, who put up a gallant fight in a difficult by-election. They both had a great deal of media pressure placed upon them and acquitted themselves very well.
	My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said some kinds words about my time as a member of his Front-Bench defence team. As I have always believed in multilateralism, I must reciprocate by saying that it was a privilege and a pleasure to work with him, to watch the way in which he drives the business of the team forward and to note the irrepressible good humour, some of which was on display this afternoon, with which he always conducts himself in handling quite serious matters. The fact that that has culminated in his winning a financial pledge from the shadow Chancellor to make a very substantial real increase in defence spending under the next Conservative Government speaks volumes for his ability in his role.
	My hon. Friend focused on platforms and numbers. I should like to quote the Defence Committee's report on the defence White Paper, which states:
	"We believe that a policy of reducing the existing number of platforms in advance of acquiring the new capabilities (and of demonstrating their effectiveness) is potentially dangerous."
	The Government's reply is frankly complacent. They say:
	"As highlighted in the Future Capabilities Paper, there are certain areas where we judge our current capability is disproportionately high".
	The Committee goes on to say:
	"We believe that if the number of platforms in certain key areas (such as large surface ships) was significantly reduced, the UK Armed Forces would be vulnerable to any significant combat attrition in future operations."
	The Government respond that they are confident that lost assets could be replaced.
	That is not what the First Sea Lord believes. He has said that we are piling risk on risk by taking these measures. One of those risks—it was once described to me by a senior naval officer as "a calculated risk"—is the decision to phase out Sea Harriers and thus have to rely on aircraft from other countries' aircraft carriers for the air defence of the fleet, at least until the joint strike fighter is introduced. Former Royal Navy Captain Ian Jenkins, the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Yeovil, has expressed to me his concern that the future of the royal naval air service base at Yeovilton, and that of people from Yeovil who work there, may be at risk partly as a result of the calculated risk that the Government are taking. Having recently visited that outstanding establishment as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I can testify at first hand to the excellent work that is done there.
	Let me move on to the principal point that I hope to impress upon the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary. It is certainly the case that high technology can help to win fighting wars with fewer platforms and fewer people. The question is, what does one do when one has won the war and has to enforce the peace? In other words, what are the primary requirements for peacekeeping? I suggest that there are five. First, the establishment of civil institutions; secondly, the setting up of a force to protect them; thirdly, the maintenance of high military morale, which is not helped by corrosive criticism in the press and elsewhere; fourthly, the maintenance of strong political will; fifthly, and above all, victory in the battle of ideas.
	Last night, there was an intriguing programme on the BBC. Its thesis, which I do not entirely accept, was that some of the conflict that went on in the cold war years, and is now going on in the post-cold war years, can be traced back to the ideas of extreme fundamentalism that had their generation in Egypt in the period under Sadat and the ideas of extreme neo-conservatism that, it was alleged, had their generation in America in the period under Ronald Reagan. The only ideas that were not really touched on were those of Soviet communism, which in my opinion also had rather a lot to do with the matter.
	But the key point about which that programme was almost certainly correct was that the reason why people are able to get political results—whether they be terrorists mobilising people to join their cause, Soviet communists mobilising people to support their cause, or neo-conservatives mobilising people to back their cause—is that they have an idea. We must have victory in the battle of ideas.
	I do not believe that the Government are doing enough to win the battle of ideas in representing to the country what is at stake in Iraq. Earlier this week, the Vice-President of Iraq was here, and I asked him whether the identity of most of the suicide bombers was known, and whether most of them were foreign insurgents. He answered yes to both those questions. Why is a better counter-propaganda information operation not under way to bring out such key facts so that people can see what is really at stake? If we do not win the battle of ideas, we do not win the hearts and minds, and if we do not win the hearts and minds, all the troops in the world will not be able to succeed.

Clive Soley: I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright) on a compelling and convincing speech. I want to comment on Iraq, particularly in the context of the remarkable achievements of our troops over the years in peacekeeping and war prevention. I mention that particularly because, in December, we will get Kofi Annan's high-level report on the problem of failing states and brutal dictatorships that destabilise their region. Unless we learn to have a sophisticated defence approach to this problem, we will find ourselves in the same situation again and again for much of the rest of this century. It is the key issue facing us and the rest of the world.
	I do not believe for one moment—I almost could not believe my ears when people started arguing it—that the deployment of less than 1,000 British troops in Iraq would somehow or other affect the outcome of the United States election. We might have affected the outcome of the United States election when we sacked Washington in 1812, or when we deployed the Royal Navy to end the slave trade, but this issue will not even be reported in the United States. The reason for that should trouble us; the United States is in an insular mood and is not paying that sort of attention to the world outside. That is one of our problems in engaging with and keeping the United States engaged on wider issues than just the military actions that are necessary from time to time.
	There is an underlying fear about this deployment that we must address, and which I ask our Government to address; first, that we might be losing control of the situation in Iraq and secondly, that the United States troops are not as good at peacekeeping and war prevention as some of ours. The movement of the Black Watch is one of quality troops with quality training, who not only can fight effectively but have a track record in peacekeeping. There is a problem for the United States, not because it does not have any troops who are good at peacekeeping and war prevention—it does—but because it does not have sufficient of them, and above all, because it does not have them in sufficient numbers in Iraq.
	The big problems that we are faced with now are down to a couple of basic mistakes. The first was the disbanding of the Iraqi police and army, which the British and Americans had never done before. The second is the lack of effective troop numbers, particularly peacekeeping troops, which is why we are losing the battle for hearts and minds, to which the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has just referred, in a couple of key areas of Iraq but not all over Iraq.
	In my area, I have not only a Territorial Army regiment but probably more Arabs in my constituency than almost any other Member; possibly more than any. The Arab Labour group is established in my constituency, and is not only fast growing in numbers but fast growing in influence, which I welcome. The Arab-Jewish forum, which I set up as a result of my discussions with Arabs in my area, is being successful.
	Iraqis in particular will tell those who talk to them, very clearly, that although they were divided among themselves on the issue of the war—like those in the rest of our country—they all wanted rid of Saddam Hussein. [Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats should listen to this, because the Iraqis had a different approach from the one that they suggest. They asked, "Why can't you send the SAS in to kill Saddam?" That would of course have been illegal, but if it could have been done, it would have been morally preferable. It could not have been done, but I want the Liberal Democrats to understand that Arab opinion is much more divided than they give it credit for.
	Why is it that so many British and American troops could be deployed in Arab countries without any major trouble? Why could I—with, if I remember rightly, a Liberal Democrat—fly over Syria a couple of months before the war in an RAF plane, with the full co-operation of the Syrians? The answer is very simple; they were scared witless by Saddam Hussein. That is why the Arab countries were prepared to go along with it and why there were no riots in the streets of many Arab countries.
	One of my Iraqi constituents told me the other day that the advantage that the British have is that we have the brains to deal with this as a peacekeeping operation as well as a war-fighting operation. He said that the problem we had was that the Americans had the muscle. The United States must get better at war prevention.
	I make no bones about the fact that we must deal with Falluja. If we want an open, free society in Iraq, as the vast majority of Iraqis and other Arabs do, Falluja cannot be allowed to continue as it is now. It has become a hotbed of support for Saddam Hussein and for the terrorists. That is why I have no problem saying that we must co-operate fully with the United States in deploying our forces to achieve the desired outcome.
	Earlier I spoke of Kofi Annan and his all-important high-level panel that would report in December. As Arabs—at least in my constituency—understand, if we can secure a stable and open society in a place like Iraq, it will spread to other areas. More importantly, we shall have a chance of dealing with the poison at the heart of the middle east; the lack of an agreement on Palestine and Israel. Some Members on both sides of the House have said that we ought to deal with that, but we could not have dealt with it when Saddam Hussein was there. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) pointed out, we cannot deal with it without the United States being fully engaged.
	By deploying our troops as part of a coalition that has now been recognised by the United Nations in order to bring stability to Iraq, we create the chance of a stable middle east. It may not seem like that now, but the people who are fighting us in Falluja and a few other areas are not there to win a stable, open and modernised society for the Arab people; they are there to stop that happening. We need to be crystal clear about this. We need to see the process through. Whatever our thoughts about the war may have been originally—and I could argue about that—we must see it through, for the sake of the Palestinians, for the sake of the Israelis and for the sake of a more stable and prosperous middle east. That is perfectly possible, but it will not be possible if we walk away, and if we do not behave like a responsible member of a coalition delivering that outcome.
	We can carry out our post-mortems over what went wrong at what time, who did what and who did not do what. However, our troops are doing a magnificent job, not just in war-fighting but in peacekeeping and war prevention. If we do not see this through, in a couple of months all the efforts of our opponents will succeed. They are also the opponents of a vast majority of the Arab people, as is recognised by my Arab constituents, and they want to defeat us.
	So anything that says that we should stand in the way of the sensible deployment of our troops simply plays into their hands. This is not intentional; I know that the Liberals are not saying that they want Saddam Hussein back. Of course they are not. Unless we recognise, however, that this is an ongoing struggle and that it is going to become particularly intense in the next couple of months, we shall lose something that is far more important to the people of that whole region than it is to us in this House or in this country. We owe it to the people of the middle east to settle the problems of that region after so many years; the world needs that to happen. It cannot be done by walking away from the problem. It can be done by the sensible deployment of our troops, with their good peacekeeping skills.

Bob Russell: When our young men and women join our armed forces, they recognise that, at some point, they might have to put their lives on the line. That does not apply only to those on the front line, because modern warfare and weaponry mean that anyone wearing the uniform, as well as civilians, could get caught up in what is happening. We need to pay tribute to all the young men and women who sign up to serve in Her Majesty's—not the Labour Government's—armed forces.
	The amount of correspondence, telephone calls and e-mails that I have received on this matter in the past 24 hours tells me that the perception out there is that the decision to deploy the Black Watch in Iraq has more to do with the presidential election in the United States than with the Iraqi elections or with peace. The Labour Government need to take that message very seriously; they ignore it at their peril.
	I find it somewhat disturbing that, having asked the question three times, no Defence Minister can tell me in how many countries around the world Her Majesty's armed forces are serving, and have served in the past year. That illustrates just how widely spread the British armed forces are in their role as peacekeepers.

Adam Ingram: The figure is 68, although that depends on how the hon. Gentleman defines his question. That figure includes all the defence attachés as well.

Bob Russell: I appreciate the Minister answering the question that the Secretary of State could not answer earlier today. I am grateful for this joined-up response.
	May I suggest that when the British armed forces are doing so much around the world, as the Minister so eloquently acknowledges, this is not the time to be talking about reducing the size of the British Army? I have no remit to speak for those who are fighting to save their county regiments, but I am bound to observe that in 1958, all the regiments in the east of England—the combined population of whose counties is greater than that of Scotland—amalgamated to form the Royal Anglian Regiment. It is therefore possible to have regional regiments while retaining the community identity.

Iain Luke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Russell: No, time is against me.
	Does the Minister accept that just because some right hon. and hon. Members were against the war, that does not mean that they do not back their troops? I represent the garrison town in which I grew up, and I challenge the Minister to say whether I back the troops of the Colchester garrison and of the armed forces in general. Of course I do—to suggest otherwise demeans the office of the Secretary of State, who was not supporting the armed forces as a Minister when I was growing up in Colchester. Furthermore, he was certainly not defending the armed forces in his previous ministerial job; he was shutting down magistrates courts. I shall be supporting our armed forces long after he has finished being Secretary of State for Defence.
	Will the Minister take this opportunity to withdraw the slur that Members, including me, do not back our armed forces, when it is clear that we do? Indeed, the Minister knows first hand that I certainly do.

Keith Simpson: We have had a long and interesting afternoon, beginning with the Secretary of State's statement on the deployment of troops in Iraq. That has been followed by a good debate, in which colleagues from all parts of the House have spoken with passion and knowledge about defence matters. However, it is fair to say that Iraq has been with us like a giant elephant sitting in the room, and the problem, particularly for the Government, is that it is not going to go away.
	There are honourable divisions not only between but within political parties. I want to make it clear from the beginning that I do not believe that just because somebody opposed the war, they are in no way capable of supporting our armed forces. It is obvious that that is not so, and we should make that clear. The divisions are real, and they will continue for as long as the difficult situation in Iraq continues.
	I want to say a few brief words about this afternoon's contributions. I pay particular tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright). He spoke incredibly well, and it brought back for us all memories of our own maiden speeches. I hope that we can extend to him an invitation to attend another of these Thursday afternoon defence stocking-fillers. He will be most welcome.
	The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), Chairman of the Defence Committee, made a number of points before he was eventually closed down, but we should all be grateful to him for the work that he and his colleagues do in the course of holding the Government to account. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made some powerful points about commitments and capabilities. In particular, it emerged that the Black Watch battlegroup will be moving to the north without any heavy armour or UK air support. It would be interesting to know from the Minister what any support will consist of, and whether the American assets in the coalition will provide it.
	The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) repeated his well-known arguments against nuclear weapons and he had an interesting and frank exchange of law with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) spoke with great passion about the regimental system, and as a keen defender of his own regiment, the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment. The right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), apart from complimenting the hon. Member for Hartlepool—and, it seemed to me, not complimenting the hon. Gentleman's predecessor—spoke up very strongly for the role played by the north-east, particularly in respect of the Navy, the maritime element in general and local industry.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) spoke with passion about the Black Watch being at risk. He did admit that he had never attended a defence debate before. That speaks volumes. It was a real pleasure to hear again the anti-war, anti-America speech of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), which I think I first heard 30 years ago.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East—we Front Benchers miss him as a result of his transfer to another shadow Department—made two powerful points, the first of which concerned platforms and numbers, to which I shall return. He also provided a very interesting checklist on the running requirements for peacekeeping and, above all, for victory in the battle of ideas. We should consider the difference between the divisions that exist in the House today, and which existed in respect of previous conflicts in which we have been involved. In terms of cross-party and public opinion, the armed forces know that they enjoy 80 to 90 per cent. support.
	Someone sitting in a barracks somewhere in the UK or serving in Iraq who may be listening to our debates—we know that on Monday troops were watching the Secretary of State's statement in real time—may well be bewildered, to say the least, by the differences of opinion that we have expressed here. They reflect, of course, differences in our society, but it is up to the Government, more than anyone else, to express a clear, understandable strategy and to keep to it. I am afraid to say—I say it with regret—that they have been unable to do so. The muddle over the battlegroup was not just due to the fact that the media have been exploiting it or the Opposition commenting on it. It was a Government-made muddle. If we talk to people in the Black Watch and their families, it becomes easy to appreciate that.
	The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), who has long served the House, made two powerful points. First, he argued that the US is approaching the problem in a very insular way. Secondly, he pointed out that the public—meaning our own public—fear that the situation in Iraq will develop into a Vietnam-style quagmire. I hope that it will not, but it is a powerful point.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) spoke up once again for the Royal Anglian Regiment.
	I would like to touch briefly on a few points. Ninety years ago today, the UK was involved in expeditionary warfare as part of another coalition. We sent a British expeditionary force as a junior partner to the French to participate in a short, sharp war in Europe. The then Prime Minister, Asquith, said that the conflict would be over by Christmas. It was assumed that it would be a war of manoeuvre rather than a war of attrition. History does not repeat itself; as Balfour said, "Historians repeat each other". However, although the circumstances and context have changed, the issues have not.
	The first issue for us to resolve is the political-military interface. Whatever the arguments about the British Government's decision to send a battlegroup at the request of the American military, it is, of course, not purely a military decision. The ultimate decision has to be political. I would like to say, though, that the Government's real problem is that a large part of British public opinion—and a large number of their own Back Benchers—do not believe them. The reason that they do not believe them—this is a tragedy for the UK Government in general and it will apply to the next Government—is that trust has been undermined. That, in turn, has an impact on public opinion and on our troops.
	Another 1914 reality is coalition politics and the fact that a junior member of a coalition frequently has to conform to the political direction and the military ethos of the major partner. As the Government spelled out very clearly in "Delivering Security in a Changing World", they were aware of the
	"assumption that the most complex large scale operations will only be conducted as part of a US-led coalition."
	The Government continued:
	"Our primary goal is to maximise our ability to influence at all levels the planning, execution and management of the operation and its aftermath, in support of our wider security policy objectives."
	I have to put it to the House that many people on both sides of the House, and also the general public, really wonder about what influence we actually have over the United States. I accept the fact that, given that we are a junior member of the coalition, many of the decisions will ultimately be made by the senior partner. However, there remains a real question in our minds about whether—even at the Prime Minister's level in his relations with the President—we have any influence at all on the overall strategy and whether Lieutenant-General John McColl, an able and experienced general, has much influence at the strategic operational level. That problem has been reflected in the sort of questions and worries that have been expressed by hon. Members in the debate, of which, I have to say, the Secretary of State has been rather too dismissive at times.
	The next matter to be borne in mind when it comes to the relationship between 1914 and today is the question of attrition and whether we have left that whole world behind. Interestingly, last year's defence White Paper argued that we should
	"develop our military capabilities so that we can provide as wide as possible a range of options to fulfil operational objectives without necessarily resorting to traditional attritional warfare."
	The word "manoeuvre" sounds wonderful—fast and loose, and as though the other side does not get time to fight and there are no casualties. However, the present conflict in Iraq is attritional at both the political and military levels. The result will be that we will have to put in more resources and that we may have to suffer more casualties. We may not be able to escape that. To Opposition Members, it seems that the rebalancing of our armed forces proposed by Ministers—and there is no doubt that that will mean cuts, regardless of whether the platforms involved are obsolete or not—will risk a reduction in short-term capabilities. In the longer term, many of the systems that Ministers wish to introduce will not be in place for five, six or seven years. That is a very serious risk.
	Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Secretary of State's arguments about large regiments and about doing away with arms plotting, most people outside the House believe that it is totally crazy to think about sending the Black Watch into the firing line only to bring its members back in time for that regiment's disbandment parade.
	The question of logistics represents another parallel between 1914 and today. The Secretary of State was right to emphasise the importance of logistics in modern warfare. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and others pointed out, it is somewhat incredible to claim that personnel from four disbanded infantry regiments will automatically move into posts as logisticians, military policemen and intelligence staff. I simply do not think that that is likely to happen, but the theme running through every House of Commons or Public Accounts Committee report for the past seven years under this Government has been that there has been a massive failure in logistics, whether that be in logistical organisation or the introduction of computers.
	I do not underestimate the serious problems involved in moving from an expeditionary force that takes all its logistics with it to one that uses the sort of just-in-time logistics that are required today. However, it seems to me—and to many in today's British Army—that we still rely too much on an approach that inevitably will lead to logistics being just too late.
	The Secretary of State must sort out that problem—and he must do so not in four or five years, but in six months to a year. Many military commanders have told many hon. Members that, at times, we will get very close to operational failure. If that happens, the Secretary of State may find that he has to defend it at the Dispatch Box.
	This debate about defence in the world has been dominated by Iraq. The first message that we need to send out is that although there are divisions in this House and within political parties about the policies that should be adopted in respect of Iraq, we support our armed forces and their families, and what they are going to do for us in the next six months to a year. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East said, we must make it clear that we expect a better articulation by the Government of their policy and vision for Iraq. Thirdly, the Secretary of State—who, with his usual courtesy, has been talking throughout most of my speech—must ensure that he does not become known as "complacent Hoon" in the history books.

Adam Ingram: In opening this debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State highlighted the invaluable contribution of our armed forces in helping to make this a better and more secure world. In recent times, they have served with distinction, often with civilian colleagues, in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and west and central Africa. Despite the wide-ranging views that we have heard this afternoon, one thing is abundantly clear: the whole House is at one in admiring the skill, dedication and sheer professionalism of our servicemen and women. Everyone who has contributed has made that point, and rightly so. We owe all our servicemen and women a debt of gratitude, and our thoughts are with the families of those who have given their lives.
	As my right hon. Friend said, the White Paper that we published in December last year set out our assessment of the security environment and identified the three key challenges that face us in the world. The first is international terrorism, which presents an immediate and very real threat. There may be a range of views as to how we should respond to that threat, but what is not for debate is the fact that the threat exists and the barbarism of the individuals and groups involved.
	The second key challenge is the recognition that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, as well as the illegal trade in their associated technology, cannot do other than pose a further threat to global security. It is naive in the extreme, and dangerous, to ignore that reality. The third is the challenge presented by failed and failing states. Those states, characterised by political mismanagement, endemic corruption, economic collapse, and ethnic and religious tensions, have the potential to create desperate humanitarian crises, as well as providing bases and recruiting grounds for terrorism. We should not forget that it was the failed state of Afghanistan that harboured those who carried out the evil attacks on Washington and New York on 11 September 2001.
	In July this year, our White Paper set out the future capabilities and reformed force structure that we need to meet the changes in the security environment and threats that we now face. We are determined that we shall continue to have armed forces of the right size and shape, and with the right equipment, to meet the challenges of the future. That is a considerable challenge, but it is a challenge that this Government are determined to rise to. The defence budget is increasing by £3.7 billion over the next three years. That is the longest period of sustained growth in defence spending for more than 20 years. We are committed to investment that takes forward the much-needed modernisation of our armed forces. That is the context in which this debate is set. Let me now deal with some of the points raised today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) named two serving officers, Colonel Terrington and Colonel James, and said that they were embedded at the Abu Ghraib camp and were responsible for interrogation. I have made it consistently clear that no British personnel were involved in, or had knowledge of, the abuses at Abu Ghraib. I wish that my hon. Friend would take more care before peddling such allegations, which are not based on any fact. From my experience as a Northern Ireland Minister, I know that when names of serving officers, soldiers and other personnel are bandied around so carelessly—even when the allegations are refuted—their lives can be put at risk. Some care is necessary. The facts were reported in Hansard in a response to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on 14 September. I ask my hon. Friend not to repeat his remarks.

Harry Cohen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Adam Ingram: No, my hon. Friend has made his point. I hope that he heeds my message.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the new Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright). I worked with his predecessor—

Bob Russell: Which one?

Adam Ingram: The latter one. I worked with him before he entered the House and when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I had a very high regard for what he did to help my party to become electable again, and for the contribution that he made in Northern Ireland.
	My former right hon. Friend's constituency is in very good hands. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who summed up for the Opposition, said, it will be good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool at defence debates in the future. There is an old Scottish phrase, "Will ye no' come back again?". I really hope that we see more of him in such debates, as he will certainly add strength to them.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made an entertaining speech. I have never attended a Conservative constituency event before, but I ask him not to invite me back; it was not particularly riveting.
	The hon. Gentleman made a number of points. He recognised the need for reorganisation and transformation of the armed forces. So he should. None of the armed forces of our NATO allies has not gone through such reorganisation and transformation. His record, when he served in the last Conservative Government was, of course, the contraction and amalgamation of regiments—[Interruption.] Regiments were amalgamated during his tenure. I shall not go into details—[Interruption.] Okay. the Highlanders Regiment was formed through amalgamation with the Queen's Own Highlanders. The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment was formed from the amalgamation of the Gloucestershire Regiment and the Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment. The fleet was reduced in size; the number of submarines fell from 18 to 10—45 per cent. The number of frigates fell from 22 to 19, and the number of naval personnel was cut by 10,000. During the 1992 to 1997 Tory Government, the number of RAF squadrons fell by 15 per cent.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned funding and gave us a great presentation to show that the Secretary of State did not understand budgets and could not explain them very well. However, I know how well my right hon. Friend understands all those things, so I did not recognise the description. I think it is more attributable to the hon. Gentleman. He glibly said that there would be a £1.1 billion cut from other Departments, but he did not tell us which ones. He just plucked the figure of £1.1 billion out of the air. He went on to say that £1.6 billion would come from defence efficiency, forgetting that we have already embarked on a £2.8 billion efficiency programme. He was thus telling us, in effect, that the amount would be £4.4 billion.
	The hon. Gentleman must tell us what he intends to cut. I head several Ministry of Defence committees dealing with the major transformation of the Defence Logistics Organisation. That is a very big machine, formed under the strategic defence review; it has some way to go but it is beginning to deliver. At a later stage, it may be worthwhile to brief the hon. Gentleman about the transformation process, but I can tell him now how difficult it is. The minute we announce any change whatever, his hon. Friends oppose it—it does not matter what we seek to do or whether it is for greater efficiency—and I suspect that his £1.6 billion cuts would be treated in the same way. His speech did not add up to much of a commitment on defence spending.
	Let me deal with the Liberals, whom I find it increasingly difficult to take seriously on defence matters. They are prepared to exploit the anti-war sentiment in the country for short-term political advantage. They are unclear about what they want our troops in Iraq to do—they never spell it out, as yesterday's exchanges at Prime Minister's questions proved. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) exposed those attitudes again today.
	The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), says on the one hand that we should commit troops only on sound operational grounds; yet when that has to be done, he suggests that the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary should override military operational advice and impose a political direction. That is just another example of "Charlie-facing-two-ways".
	There is further evidence in Liberal Democrat contortions over the justification for deploying our troops against Saddam Hussein. Let us consider two statements about that. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who is after all a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, said:
	"Does the Prime Minister understand that he enjoys Liberal Democrat support for the action that he has taken in deploying British forces against Saddam Hussein?"—[Official Report, 17 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 1104.]

Paul Keetch: What date was that?

Adam Ingram: I shall come on to that.
	On the same day, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson in the other place said:
	"I rise to support the Statement on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. In the circumstances, it was unavoidable that Britain should take action with the United States. Clearly, Saddam Hussein has broken all the terms of the UN conditions attached to his regime. Under those circumstances, we had no choice but to intervene."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1528.]
	Those significant comments were made on 17 December 1998.

Paul Keetch: In 1998!

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is correct about that. However, five years later, when the United Nations tried to deal with the matter again, the Liberals had gone in a different direction, despite the five years in which Saddam further ignored the existing resolutions and resolution 1441. The Liberals' flip-flop approach is not very helpful.

Paul Keetch: rose—

Adam Ingram: I want to make one or two points about the hon. Gentleman's speech. He asked for clarification about the air policing of Baltic states—Estonia and Lithuania. We have jets there, but they will be withdrawn in January 2005. We will be replaced by the Norwegians.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the tour of duty of HMS Richmond in the West Indies. I served a night on the ship recently—[Hon. Members: "Served?"] I was going to say that I served the drinks on the ship, but I decided not to do so in case that led to other comments. I spent a night with the ship's crew. I probably spoke to most of them and I was able to pay tribute to all that they did for hurricane relief.

Paul Keetch: Does the Minister believe that every person in the House who opposed the war in Iraq and every person who marched on the streets in opposition to that war wanted Saddam Hussein to stay in power?

Adam Ingram: Of course I do not think that at all. I respect those people's opinion, but I ask a party that purports to be a possible party of government—no matter how far it is from that eventuality—to think seriously about the way in which it has flip-flopped on the issue. It took a firm view on Operation Desert Fox because it had a specific purpose and was consistent with UN Security Council resolutions. However, we then had five more years of the problem during which Saddam Hussein continued to reject and ignore Security Council resolutions, but because the Liberal Democrats identified an anti-war sentiment, they started to exploit it for political purposes. That is why I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman and his party.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) talked about the future of the Black Watch. He would have benefited from being more involved in such debates in the past because he would then have been able to understand the wider and more complex issues that we are trying to address.

Iain Luke: The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) drew the Minister's attention to the rally on Saturday in Dundee to save the regiment. A parade of the regimental associations of the Black Watch will also take place. Does he have a message to pass on to those people?

Adam Ingram: I am more than willing to meet the associations, and I know that my ministerial colleagues are willing to do the same. I met representatives of the Highlanders' association on Monday. We have a strong message to give to those people, especially those who serve in the regiments. We value the regimental system. We are looking at a form of transforming the Army that is justified and sound.
	At the end of the process, it will give us more deployable battalions—better equipped, better resourced and better respected by those who may have thought otherwise in the developing debate.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside really should have a—
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

CHILD TRAFFICKING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

John Bercow: I welcome the chance to raise the issue of child trafficking. In this Session of Parliament, there have been 10 parliamentary questions in the House of Commons on this subject and one truly excellent Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Beyond that, the subject has been mentioned in a number of debates, but I suggest that parliamentary attention to it has been woefully inadequate to the scale of the challenge that we face.
	The United Nations estimates that 1.2 million children are trafficked internally and externally a year. There were 250 known cases of children trafficked into the UK between 1995 and 2003. This number, however, should not be taken as an indication that this is not a significant problem. It is impossible to estimate the true extent of trafficking, owing to the lack of reliable data. The underground nature of the business and the lack of co-ordinated research have hindered progress in explaining its extent. The groundbreaking research paper by ECPAT UK—End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes—on trafficking in London discovered that social services departments in 32 of the 33 London boroughs were concerned that they had a problem with child trafficking.
	No estimate of income from child trafficking alone has been made, but global profits from people trafficking as a whole are approximately £5 billion per year. This evil trade in human beings is big business. The profits are approximately six times those of our most successful food retailer in Britain—Tesco. The profitability of people trafficking is second only to the trafficking of drugs and arms. Indeed, there appears even to be a crossover with those other forms of international organised crime, with trafficked children being used as drug mules.
	Large-scale trafficking takes place within countries or to neighbouring countries within the developing world. In west Africa, children are often sent to live with "relatives" in cities, in effect becoming domestic slaves. In eastern Europe, young women are trafficked from desperately poor areas to relatively wealthy neighbouring countries. European Union accession states are prime destination and transit countries for the conduct of this business. In Asia, women and children are trafficked from Burma to Thailand for work in the sex trade, begging or labouring in a number of different industries.
	Children are trafficked to the United Kingdom to be exploited in a number of ways. Often Britain is targeted as a transit country on the way to other European destinations. The most high-profile cases are those of sexual exploitation through prostitution or the making of child porn. Children's lives are shattered by such experiences, but this is just one way in which children are abused. Domestic servitude is a significant problem, although one that is difficult to detect as children are kept away from the authorities. Child labour, organised begging, forced marriage, benefit fraud, adoption and the practice of black magic rituals are further purposes for which children are trafficked.
	The high-profile cases of Victoria Climbié, who was trafficked to the UK by her aunt in order to commit benefit fraud; of "Adam", the Nigerian boy whose torso was discovered in the Thames; and of controversial alleged baby smuggler evangelist Gilbert Deya, are just the tip of the iceberg.
	We must also not forget—indeed, the debate gives us an opportunity to remember—the cases that the media do not so readily pick up. For example, "Dayo", a 15-year-old Nigerian girl, was trafficked to the United Kingdom for work as a domestic slave. She worked long hours looking after three children, as well as cooking and cleaning. After a few months, friends of the family with which she lived left their children in her care. By the time she was 16, she was looking after no fewer than seven children. She received no payment, was regularly beaten savagely and was subjected to rape attempts by the father of the family.
	There is the complex case of "Lydia", a 16-year-old Albanian girl who was trafficked to Italy by her boyfriend. He had prostituted her from the age of 14 in Albania but promised her a new life. She believed him and hoped to escape her abusive family. However, she was forced into prostitution. She came into contact with social services in London, claiming to have escaped her trafficker, but disappeared soon afterwards, probably falling back into his clutches. Social services in London also had to deal with the distressing case of a 13-year-old Vietnamese girl who was brought to the United Kingdom and kept in a house as a prostitute. She managed to escape after breaking a window.
	Those are only some of the cases about which we know. How many more children, who are not fortunate enough to come into contact with a non-governmental organisation or social services department to help them to escape, are being exploited? We need to do far more to combat the evil trade in human lives and help its victims to recover their lives.
	First, we need to work with source countries to help to mitigate the factors that facilitate trafficking. The Government are already working with agencies in Romania and the Czech Republic; and the Department for International Development, whose Under-Secretary I am delighted to see in the Chamber listening to the debate, funds NGOs that work on anti-trafficking projects. Despite those efforts, much more needs to be done. Raising awareness of the trafficking problem must be a top priority. Parents must be made aware that they are not sending their children to a better life when they put them in the hands of traffickers. New communities in Britain can help by sending the message to their contacts in the developing world about the grim prospect that awaits the victims of trafficking.
	The myriad problems of underdevelopment, poverty, lack of education, conflict, weak institutions and poor governance work in the traffickers' favour. We can combat those by helping Governments to tackle corruption and fund the necessary social expenditure to protect vulnerable children. In Russia alone, 620,000 children are social orphans. Given the paucity of welfare spending there, every one of them is vulnerable to trafficking. The same applies to a vast number of developing countries, which, I am sorry to say, spend far more on propping up their military or police apparatus than on public services or help for their poorest citizens. In Africa, HIV/AIDS has ravaged whole communities and destroyed family structures. Traffickers are targeting the orphans and vulnerable children left behind.
	In addition, we need to work to improve children's status. That is especially true of girls in the developing world who, all too often and deplorably, are treated not as human beings with human rights but as pieces of property and items for barter. Close and extended co-operation between the Home Office and the Department for International Development is vital.
	We must expand our support for Governments and NGOs to provide shelter and care for victims of trafficking. In many cases, returned children are rejected by their families or are fearful of returning home in case the trafficker finds them. It is essential that proper provisions be made to prevent retrafficking and to allow children to recover.
	We must not return children to an environment in which they are likely, once again, to be exploited.
	There is much to be done within the United Kingdom. Recent legislation has criminalised trafficking, but to tackle the trade, we need to work in three broad areas: at ports of entry, in tracking children who depart and in bolstering services for those who are exploited and damaged.
	First, we need to build up services at ports of entry. The findings of Operation Paladin showed that the most effective way to intercept the trade is to intercept children as they pass through immigration before they disappear into the world outside the airport and face likely exploitation. Officers—whether immigration staff, police or social workers—specially trained to read body language and identify children at risk should be stationed in substantial numbers at all major ports of entry. In addition, we need to work with airlines, as they may be able to identify children at risk on their flights.
	Secondly, let us establish an effective mechanism to track children when they leave the airport. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has recommended the assignment of identity numbers to all risk-assessed children. It is also calling for the establishment of a register to monitor private fostering, as it is suspected that a substantial proportion of the 10,000 children privately fostered in the UK are, in fact, victims of trafficking. Communication between the various agencies involved must also be improved to track children and rescue victims—for example, to provide co-ordination between the police and social services, to target so-called hot addresses that frequently come to the attention of social workers.
	Thirdly, in seeking to assist child victims, social workers need to be trained both to recognise cases of trafficking and to handle them effectively. There are no national guidelines to advise social services, and many workers have complained of feeling ill-equipped to deal with trafficking cases. In addition, we must ensure that the support services are in place to help children to overcome their ordeal. Safe, secure housing, education and counselling are all essential. There are currently no facilities to deal specifically with trafficked children. That is simply unacceptable.
	As I hope I have demonstrated, the problem of child trafficking is acute, growing and under-recognised. Those who profit from it and drive its expansion remind us of the extent of human evil. They cannot be ignored; they must not be appeased; they have to be confronted and defeated. There is a big challenge to policy makers to act nationally, internationally and in concert with our European partners. I doubt whether there is any difference between the Minister and me about the importance of tackling the problem and protecting children. I have sought to make a constructive contribution this evening, and I look forward to the Minister's constructive reply.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for helping to achieve one of his own demands: placing this issue higher up the agenda of public debate. As he says, it has been discussed in Parliament in questions and the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Nevertheless, it is one of the subjects that is not sufficiently addressed in public discourse, and the hon. Gentleman has contributed to raising it further up the agenda by initiating this debate today.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we need to keep the bright light of public attention on the issue because the thing that feeds the shady and evil world of the child traffickers is that some people do not believe that things could be so; they do not believe the horrific accounts of individual children who, as he described, have been trafficked into prostitution and domestic servitude in this country. Child trafficking is probably the most grotesque violation of human rights that I can conceive of happening in this country, and it is a trade that transcends national borders and feeds other forms of crime. As he pointed out, there is evidence that child trafficking and drug trafficking work in a partnership that enhances both.
	It is clear that we need to work together, across agencies and Departments, with citizens and voluntary organisations if we are to tackle child trafficking effectively.
	We know that detailed statistics are hard to come by. One of the problems with illegal trades is that we cannot count how often they occur, but we get into trouble for saying that and are told that we do not know what is going on. One of the fundamental things about illegality is that because it is illegal it is hard to quantify. The hon. Gentleman set out the scale of the problem according to the UNICEF study. A study in 1995 by the International Organisation for Migration estimated that 500,000 women were trafficked to the EU. Let us be clear about this: if 500,000 women are being trafficked to the EU, I would be surprised if the scale of child trafficking was not higher than most estimates suggest, although we cannot get a precise figure on that.
	There is a serious problem to address. The Government operate in four ways. The first and most important, as I think the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, is to prevent trafficking from happening in the first place. That involves working in source countries. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development is in the Chamber. That reflects the seriousness with which the Government take the matter. Indeed, I spoke to the Secretary of State for International Development about it this morning. He was eager to know what happens tonight.
	Secondly, we are putting in place an enforcement response to clamp down on the traffickers. Thirdly, we are trying to punish them when we catch them. We will not catch them all, but when we do we need to ensure that appropriate punishment and tough sentences are in place. Fourthly, we need to do all we can to support the victims of child trafficking to help them to overcome the trauma of trafficking and to restart their lives.
	On the preventive work, I do not want to talk at length about the work that we need to do to tackle poverty, ignorance and the conditions that make a life of servitude in a rich country something to which someone might aspire. Those are part of the reason why some children's parents believe the tales. The hon. Gentleman referred to Dayo. Often enough families believe that their children might have a better life to consent to something that they also think might be other than that. It is important that we deal with abject poverty that enables parents to con themselves.
	It is also important, however, that we ensure that education is in place. We must have the voice to ensure that people back home in source countries know about the consequences of trafficking. We must help to stop traditional practices mutating into exploitation. The example of west African children fostered over here and turned into domestic slaves, such as in the Dayo case, is not uncommon. We need to ensure that the traditional practice of sharing child care across families does not end up in another Victoria Climbié case. Children must not end up in servitude.
	The first part of the Home Office's preventive approach is the Reflex work. Reflex Romania is one example of that. Romania is a source country for a range of trafficking. At the beginning of 2002, the UK and Romania agreed to establish a central intelligence unit based in Bucharest, focusing on the organised immigration crime that originates from and transits through Romania. The project started in April 2002 and in its first year of operational activity 105 criminal groups were identified, 48 were disrupted and 90 individuals were arrested.
	We have launched a twinning project, which is EU-funded, with the Czech Republic, which the UK is leading and running in partnership with the Netherlands to develop law enforcement in the Czech Republic to deal with trafficking.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the voice of those already in this country. We have been investigating how we can use publicity to raise awareness of the consequences of falling victim to trafficking. Hon. Members will recall that when a large number of Roma were arriving in the UK and claiming asylum, there seems to have been video in Romania suggesting that everything was wonderful in Britain and that people who came here would have all their bills paid and have a happy life. It is clear that propaganda from the UK can act as a drag, so with non-governmental organisations—this does not necessarily work best when initiated by Governments—we are looking at how previous publicity activity worked and making plans for activity to reach those most at risk of being trafficked. We are working collaboratively with NGOs and the Government in Romania.
	The Department for International Development has funded radio programmes, for example, in other areas. We must learn from each example and make sure that as part of our work overseas we fund the message that the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted. We have committed almost £9 million to the International Labour Organisation's international programme for the elimination of child labour for work in the Greater Mekong region. The programme involves a number of interventions to raise awareness, prevent trafficking and reintegrate survivors of trafficking into society. That is particularly important for children. If we return them to the place where they were trafficked from, we need to ensure that there is a safe place for them to return to. That may be difficult to assess from the UK, but their future prospects may be better in their own environment with their own language and culture.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady rightly referred to the International Labour Organisation. In the course of my remarks I referred to the traffic from Burma to Thailand. It is also relevant to recognise and highlight the fact that Burma is in serious violation of ILO conventions in relation to labour. Will the Minister reiterate the Government's strong discouragement of companies trading with a regime that breaks those conventions?

Fiona Mactaggart: One of the things that I do in my broader role as Minister with responsibility for charities is spend quite a lot of time talking to companies about their corporate social responsibility policies. I find it inconceivable that a company can be smug about its corporate social responsibility when it is responsible for investing in plant and managing production in places where employees are denied basic human rights. I am unashamed to say that to those with whom I debate issues of corporate social responsibility. I remind them that they damage their reputation. If part of their corporate social responsibility is to make people feel proud of the company that they work for or good about a particular product, people will not feel that if there is child labour or exploitation, if they do not meet basic human rights standards or if their policies abroad are inadequate.
	What are we doing in the UK? I will not list the whole range of enforcement activities that we undertake, but it is important to mention the Reflex programme, which has managed to intervene in 38 organised crime groups. Thirty-eight convictions have been secured for related offences, most of them trafficking, including the conviction of a ruthless criminal who was trafficking young girls into prostitution in London.
	I congratulate the Metropolitan police and Reflex on their work, which resulted in the principal defendant in that case being sentenced to 23 years' imprisonment. Appropriate punishments, as well as effective enforcement, are critical.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Operation Paladin. If a trafficked child reaches the UK, we must, as he pointed out, make sure that the response at the ports is adequate. Operation Paladin was led by the Metropolitan police in conjunction with the immigration service, social services and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It took place between August and November last year and was funded by Reflex. The operation has not found conclusive evidence on trafficking at Heathrow, but significant child protection issues undoubtedly exist. The report made a number of recommendations, which we are examining carefully. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will take steps to respond to those recommendations, but I cannot pre-announce the final decisions.
	In the meantime, a child protection officer is already based at Heathrow. The immigration service is developing a proposal to base social work teams at major ports of entry, exactly as the hon. Gentleman demanded. He is right that picking up vulnerable children at the moment of entry is the best way to protect them. We are also looking to roll out a training course to give immigration officers specialist skills for interviewing children, because some ports or flights will inevitably not be covered. We must try to ensure that immigration officers know how to interview children and the signs and symptoms to look for.
	I have discussed the emphasis that we have placed on punishment. The Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force this year, introduces comprehensive offences, including trafficking offences, and we must ensure that they are enforced as quickly as possible.
	On support for victims, the most important message is that the victims are children, not immigration cases. We must focus on the point that child trafficking is a child protection issue. It is the business of those who are responsible for child protection to protect trafficked children, whatever their immigration status. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families is currently engaged in a robust debate on the Children Bill. I do not want to intervene in that debate, although I will make sure that she sees a copy of this debate, because I know that these issues are being discussed.
	If we have effective and robust child protection structures, we will have effective structures to protect trafficked children. Sometimes social services query whether such children are their business because of those children's immigration status. They are our business because they are children. The leaders of bodies working in social services know that, but we must help everyone in social services departments to understand that they must, as in any other case, undertake a needs assessment and provide services in the light of its outcome. Services must be tailored to the individual needs of the child, just as they should be for any child in need. That is the Government's commitment, which must happen in practice.
	The best way in which to provide support for victims is the same way in which we provide support for victims of other kinds of child abuse, because the trafficking of children is child abuse. Our newspapers and media are horrified by child abuse, and they are also horrified by the trafficking of children, but they do not know how serious the problem is and the scale of work that is required to prevent, deter and punish those involved and to protect the victims.
	We are doing quite a bit, but we must do more, and the Government cannot address the situation on their own. We know that non-governmental organisations are important partners. I am certain that—
	The motion having been made at Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at half-past Six o'clock.